Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Meta-Anal. Aug 28, 2020; 8(4): 309-319
Published online Aug 28, 2020. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v8.i4.309
Published online Aug 28, 2020. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v8.i4.309
Table 2 Institutes of Medicine recommended standards for meta-analysis
| Required element | Papers meeting this standard (total number and percentage) | Published/ accepted papers meeting this standard (total number and percentage) | Preprint papers meeting this standard (total number and percentage) |
| Explain why a pooled estimate might be useful to decision makers | 9/19 (47%) | 5/9 (56%) | 4/10 (40%) |
| Use expert methodologists to develop, execute, and peer review the meta-analyses | 15/19 (79%) | 7/9 (78%) | 8/10 (80%) |
| Address heterogeneity among study effects | 18/19 (95%) | 8/9 (89%) | 10/10 (100%) |
| Accompany all estimates with measures of statistical uncertainty | 19/19 (100%) | 9/9 (100%) | 10/10 (100%) |
| Assess the sensitivity of conclusions to changes in the protocol, assumptions, and study selection (sensitivity analysis) | 12/19 (63%) | 5/9 (56%) | 7/10 (70%) |
- Citation: Frater JL. Importance of reporting quality: An assessment of the COVID-19 meta-analysis laboratory hematology literature. World J Meta-Anal 2020; 8(4): 309-319
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2308-3840/full/v8/i4/309.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v8.i4.309