Skip to main content

Table 2 Methodological quality of meta-analyses.

From: Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: Differences in methodological quality and conclusions

Questions Supported by industry Non-profit support or no support P value* Undeclared support
  (N = 10) (N = 18)   (N = 11)
1. Were the search methods used to find evidence on the primary question stated? 6 18 0.02 6
2. Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive? 4 17 <0.01 6
3. Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include reported? 5 17 0.03 10
4. Was bias in the selection of studies avoided? 1 12 0.01 3
5. Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported? 3 15 0.02 5
6. Was the validity of all studies referred to in the text assessed using appropriate criteria? 1 10 0.04 1
7. Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies reported? 9 17 1.00 10
8. Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately? 7 16 0.46 8
9. Were the conclusions made by the author(s) supported by the data reported? 9 15 1.00 9
Overall quality (1–7) (median score) 2.5 6 <0.01 3
  1. Number of meta-analyses that obtained an affirmative answer to the questions of the Oxman and Guyatt index; and median overall quality score.
  2. * Supported by industry vs non-profit or no support.