Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Comparisons of percent 'yes' and percent 'differences' using the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM).

From: Does updating improve the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews?

Questions QUOROM Original Updated Difference
Items Heading Subheading Descriptor Reviews yes, % reviews yes [95% CI] Reviews yes, % reviews yes [95% CI] Difference % [95% CI] p-value
1 Title   Identified the report as a meta-analysis [or systematic review] of randomized trials. 0, 0% 0, 0% 0% NS
2 Abstract   Used a structured format. 100% 100% 0% NS
3   Objectives The clinical question explicitly. 96.2% [91.0 to 100.0] 98% [94.4 to 100.0] 1.9% [-1.8 to 7.0] 0.56
4   Data sources The databases (e.g. list) and other information sources. 76% [63.8 to 87.2] 93% [85.3 to 99.6] 17.0% [9.8 to 28.7] 0.01
5   Review methods The selection criteria (e.g. population, intervention, outcome, and study design; methods for validity assessment, data abstraction, and study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis) in sufficient detail to permit replication. 40% [26.3 to 52.9] 76% [63.8 to 87.2] 35.9% [24.1 to 49.1] 0.00
6   Results Characteristics of the randomized trials included and excluded; qualitative and quantitative findings (e.g. point estimates and confidence intervals); and subgroup analyses. 71% [59.5 to 83.9] 77% [66.0 to 88.7] 5.7% [-5.7 to 17.9] 0.50
7   Conclusion The main results. 96% [91.4 to 100.0] 98% [94.4 to 100.0] 1.9% [-1.8 to 7.1] 0.56
8   Intro The explicit clinical problem, biologic rationale for the intervention, and rationale for review. 98% [94.4 to 100.0] 100% 2% [1.9 to 5.6] 0.31
9 Methods Searching The information sources, in detail (e.g., databases, registers, personal files, expert informants, agencies, hand-searching], and any restrictions (e.g. years considered, publication status, language of publication). 68% [55.2 to 80.6] 87% [77.7 to 96.0] 18.9% [9.7 to 31.6] 0.02
10   Selection The inclusion and exclusion criteria (defining population, intervention principal outcomes, and study design). 100% 96% [91.0 to 100.0] -3.7% [-9.0 to 3.8] 0.15
11   Validity assessment The criteria and process used [e.g., masked conditions, quality assessment and their findings. 87% [77.6 to 96.0] 96% [91.0 to 100.0] 9.4% [4.3 to 18.6] 0.08
12   Data abstraction The process used (e.g., completed independently, in duplicate). 74% [61.6 to 85.6] 93% [85.3 to 99.6] 18.9% [11.7 to 30.9] 0.01
13   Study characteristics The type of study design, participants' characteristics, details of intervention, outcome definitions, etc.; and how clinical heterogeneity was assessed. 89% [61.6 to 85.6] 96% [91.0 to 100.0] 7.6% [2.4 to 16.1] 0.14
14   Quantitative data synthesis The principal measures of effect [e.g., relative risk], method of combining results (statistical testing and confidence intervals), handling of missing data, etc.; how statistical heterogeneity was assessed; a rationale for any a priori sensitivity and subgroup analyses; and any assessment of publication bias. 83% [72.8 to 93.2] 79% [68.2 to 90.2] -3.7% [-14.8 to 6.4] 0.62
15 Results Trial flow Provide a meta-analysis profile summarizing trial flow 2% [-1.8 to 5.6] 8% [0.36 to 14.7] 5.7% [-1.5 to 9.4] 0.17
16   Study characteristics Present descriptive data for each trial [e.g., age, sample size, intervention, dose, and duration, follow-up]. 89% [80.1 to 97.3] 83% [72.9 to 93.2] -5.7% [-15.9 to 2.9] 0.40
17   Quantitative data synthesis Report agreement on the selection and validity assessment; present simple summary results [for each treatment group in each trial, for each primary outcome]; data needed to calculate effect sizes and confidence intervals in intention-to-treat analyses [e.g., 2 × 2 tables of counts, means and standard deviations, proportions]. 81% [70.5 to 91.8] 89% [80.1 to 97.3] 7.5 [-1.1 to 18.2] 0.28
18 Discussion   Summarize the key findings; discuss clinical inferences based on internal and external validity; interpret the results in light of the totality of available evidence; describe potential biases in the review process [e.g., publication bias]; and suggest a future research agenda. 96% [91.0 to 100.0] 96% [91.0 to 100.0] 0% [-5.2 to 5.2] NS