Importance of reporting quality: An assessment of the COVID-19 meta-analysis laboratory hematology literature

Table 3 Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-analyses checklist

Item number	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)
1	Title	19/19 (100%)	8/9 (89%)	10/10 (100%)
2	Structured summary	18/19 (95%)	8/9 (89%)	10/10 (100%)
Introduction
3	Rationale	16/19 (84%)	8/9 (80%)	8/10 (89%)
4	Objectives	17/19 (89%)	9/9 (90%)	8/10 (89%)
Methods
5	Protocol/Registration	16/19 (84%)	8/9 (89%)	8/10 (78%)
6	Eligibility criteria	17/19 (89%)	8/9 (89%)	9/10 (89%)
7	Information sources	18/19 (95%)	9/9 (100%)	9/10 (89%)
8	Search	18/19 (95%)	9/9 (100%)	9/10 (89%)
9	Study selection	19/19 (100%)	9/9 (100%)	10/10 (100%)
10	Data collection process	18/19 (95%)	8/9 (89%)	10/10 (100%)
11	Data items	17/19 (89%)	8/9 (89%)	9/10 (89%)
12	Risk of bias in individual studies	10/19 (53%)	4/9 (44%)	6/10 (56%)
13	Summary measures	15/19 (79%)	6/9 (66%)	8/10 (78%)
14	Synthesis of results	16/19 (84%)	7/9 (78%)	9/10 (89%)
15	Risk of bias across studies	2/19 (11%)	2/9 (22%)	0/10 (0)
16	Additional analyses	2/19 (11%)	1/9 (11%)	1/10 (10%)
Results
17	Study selection	19/19 (100%)	9/9 (100%)	10/10 (100%)
18	Study characteristics	19/19 (100%)	9/9 (100%)	10/10 (100%)
19	Risk of bias within studies	12/19 (63%)	5/9 (56%)	7/10 (70%)
20	Results of individual studies	11/19 (58%)	5/9 (56%)	6/10 (60%)
21	Synthesis of results	16/19 (84%)	8/9 (89%)	8/10 (80%)
22	Risk of bias across studies	9/19 (47%)	5/9 (56%)	4/10 (40%)
23	Additional analysis	0/19 (0)	0/9 (0)	0/10 (0)
Discussion
24	Summary of evidence	19/19 (100%)	9/9 (100%)	10/10 (100%)
25	Limitations	16/19 (84%)	7/9 (78%)	9/10 (90%)
26	Conclusions	19/19 (100%)	9/9(100%)	10/10 (100%)
Funding
27	Funding	7/19 (37%)	3/9 (33%)	4/10 (40%)