Meta-Analysis
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
Table 4 Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria checklist
ChecklistNumberPapers 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)
I. Reporting of background
A. Problem definition10/19 (53%)7/9 (78%)3/10 (30%)
B. Hypothesis statement2/19 (11%)1/9 (11%)1/10 (10%)
C. Description of study outcome(s)19/19 (100%)10/9 (100%)9/10 (90%)
D. Type of exposure or intervention used18/19 (95%)9/9 (100%)8/10 (80%)
E. Type of study designs used18/19 (95%)9/9 (100%)9/10 (90%)
F. Study population18/19 (95%)9/9 (100%)9/10 (90%)
II. Reporting of search strategy
A. Qualifications of searchers0/19 (0)0/9 (0)0/10 (0)
B. Search strategy17/19 (89%)9/9 (100%)8/10 (80%)
C. Effort to include all available studies10/19 (53%)7/9 (78%)3/10 (30%)
D. Databases and registries searched17/19 (89%)7/9 (78%)10/10 (100%)
E. Search software used8/19 (42%)4/9 (44%)4/10 (40%)
F. Use of hand searching2/19 (11%)1/9 (11%)1/10 (10%)
G. List of citations located and those excluded10/19 (53%)5/9 (56%)5/10 (50%)
H. Method of addressing articles published in languages other than English0/19 (0)0/9 (0)0/10 (0)
I. Method of handling abstracts and unpublished studies0/19 (0)0/9 (0)0/10 (0)
J. Description of any contact with authors0/19 (0)0/9 (0)0/10 (0)
III. Reporting of methods
A. Description of relevance or appropriateness of studies assembled for assessing the hypothesis to be tested8/19 (42%)4/9 (44%)4/10 (40%)
B. Rationale for the selection and coding of data13/19 (68%)7/9 (78%)6/10 (60%)
C. Documentation of how data were classified and coded12/19 (63%)8/9 (89%)4/10 (40%)
D. Assessment of confounding1/19 (5%)0/9 (0)1/10 (10%)
E. Assessment of study quality16/19 (84%)7/9 (78%)9/10 (90%)
F. Assessment of heterogeneity18/19 (95%)8/9 (89%)10/10 (100%)
G. Description of statistical methods19/19 (100%)9/9 (100%)10/10 (100%)
H. Provision of appropriate tables and graphics18/19 (95%)9/9 (100%)9/10 (90%)
IV. Reporting of results
A. Graphic summarizing individual study estimates and overall estimate19/19 (100%)9/9 (100%)10/10 (100%)
B. Table giving descriptive information for each study included16/19 (84%)7/9 (78%)9/10 (90%)
C. Results of sensitivity testing (e.g, subgroup analysis)12/19 (63%)7/9 (78%)5/10 (50%)
D. Indication of statistical uncertainty of findings17/19 (89%)8/9 (89%)9/10 (90%)
E. Reporting of discussion should include
1. Quantitative assessment of bias (e.g, publication bias)11/19 (58%)4/9 (44%)7/10 (70%)
2. Justification for exclusion (eg, exclusion of non–English-language citations)3/19 (16%)1/9 (11%)2/10 (20%)
3. Assessment of quality of included studies12/19 (63%)4/9 (44%)8/10 (80%)
V. Reporting of conclusions
A. Consideration of alternative explanations for observed results1/19 (11%)0/9 (0)1/10 (10%)
B. Generalization of the conclusions (i.e, appropriate for the data presented and within the domain of the literature review)19/19 (100%)9/9 (100%)10/10 (100%)
C. Guidelines for future research8/19 (42%)6/9 (66%)2/10 (20%)