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

Table 4 Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria checklist

Checklist	Number	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)
I. Reporting of background
A. Problem definition		10/19 (53%)	7/9 (78%)	3/10 (30%)
B. Hypothesis statement		2/19 (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 used		18/19 (95%)	9/9 (100%)	8/10 (80%)
E. Type of study designs used		18/19 (95%)	9/9 (100%)	9/10 (90%)
F. Study population		18/19 (95%)	9/9 (100%)	9/10 (90%)
II. Reporting of search strategy
A. Qualifications of searchers		0/19 (0)	0/9 (0)	0/10 (0)
B. Search strategy		17/19 (89%)	9/9 (100%)	8/10 (80%)
C. Effort to include all available studies		10/19 (53%)	7/9 (78%)	3/10 (30%)
D. Databases and registries searched		17/19 (89%)	7/9 (78%)	10/10 (100%)
E. Search software used		8/19 (42%)	4/9 (44%)	4/10 (40%)
F. Use of hand searching		2/19 (11%)	1/9 (11%)	1/10 (10%)
G. List of citations located and those excluded		10/19 (53%)	5/9 (56%)	5/10 (50%)
H. Method of addressing articles published in languages other than English		0/19 (0)	0/9 (0)	0/10 (0)
I. Method of handling abstracts and unpublished studies		0/19 (0)	0/9 (0)	0/10 (0)
J. Description of any contact with authors		0/19 (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 tested		8/19 (42%)	4/9 (44%)	4/10 (40%)
B. Rationale for the selection and coding of data		13/19 (68%)	7/9 (78%)	6/10 (60%)
C. Documentation of how data were classified and coded		12/19 (63%)	8/9 (89%)	4/10 (40%)
D. Assessment of confounding		1/19 (5%)	0/9 (0)	1/10 (10%)
E. Assessment of study quality		16/19 (84%)	7/9 (78%)	9/10 (90%)
F. Assessment of heterogeneity		18/19 (95%)	8/9 (89%)	10/10 (100%)
G. Description of statistical methods		19/19 (100%)	9/9 (100%)	10/10 (100%)
H. Provision of appropriate tables and graphics		18/19 (95%)	9/9 (100%)	9/10 (90%)
IV. Reporting of results
A. Graphic summarizing individual study estimates and overall estimate		19/19 (100%)	9/9 (100%)	10/10 (100%)
B. Table giving descriptive information for each study included		16/19 (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 findings		17/19 (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 studies		12/19 (63%)	4/9 (44%)	8/10 (80%)
V. Reporting of conclusions
A. Consideration of alternative explanations for observed results		1/19 (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 research		8/19 (42%)	6/9 (66%)	2/10 (20%)