Skip to main content

Table 4 Screening, extraction and risk of bias assessment in the included systematic reviews (the HTA data were collected for this study; all other data are from Page et al. [1], i.e. the data collected for 300 systematic reviews for a single month in 2004 and 2014)

From: Nature and reporting characteristics of UK health technology assessment systematic reviews

Characteristic

2004 n = 300 [1]

HTA 2004 n = 23

HTA 2014 n = 30

Cochrane 2014 n = 45 [1]

2014 n = 300 [1]

Screening

By at least two authors

NR

14 (61%)

22 (73%)

44 (98%)

200 (67%)

By one author, with a sample screened by a second

NR

2 (9%)

3 (10%)

1 (2%)

7 (2%)

By one author only

NR

2 (9%)

1 (3%)

0 (0%)

6 (2%)

Not reported / Unclear

NR

5 (22%)

4 (13%)

0 (0%)

87 (29%)

Empty review (no included / eligible studies)

NR

0/23 (0%)

2/30 (7%)

3/45 (7%)

4/300 (1%)

Extraction

NR

n = 23

n = 28

n = 42

n = 296

By at least two authors

NR

4 (17%)

5 (18%)

41 (98%)

163 (55%)

By one author, with data verified by a second

NR

14 (61%)

19 (68%)

0 (0%)

29 (10%)

By one author only

NR

1 (4%)

2 (7%)

0 (0%)

7 (2%)

Not reported / Unclear

NR

4 (17%)

2 (7%)

1 (2%)

97 (33%)

Quality assessment

- (67%)

23 (100%)

28 (100%)

42 (100%)

206 (70%)

By at least two authors

NR

5 (22%)

10 (36%)

37 (88%)

121/206 (59%)

By one author, with data verified by a second

NR

11 (48%)

12 (43%)

0 (0%)

6/206 (3%)

By one author only

NR

1 (4%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

3/206 (1%)

Not reported

NR

6 (26%)

6 (21%)

5 (12%)

76/206 (37%)

Risk of bias / quality assessment tool

Cochrane (or modification)

NR

2 (9%)

12 (43%)

37 (88%)

77 (37%)

Jadad

NR

4 (17%)

0 (0%)

0(0%)

33 (11%)

Newcastle-Ottowa

NR

0

0 (0%)

1 (2%)

17 (8%)

QUADAS, QUADAS-2

NR

1 (4%)

5 (18%)

0 (0%)

8 (4%)

Own

NR

2 (9%)

3 (11%)

2 (5%)

38 (18%)

Other

NR

14 (61%)a

9 (32%)a

3 (7%)

53 (26%)

Not reported

NR

1 (4%)

1 (4%)

0 (0%)

6 (3%)

Selective reportingb

NR

0

10/28 (36%)

36/42 (86%)

70 (24%)

  1. HTA Health Technology Assessment aEspecially CRD criteria, which are arguably as appropriate to UK HTA as the Cochrane risk of bias tool is to Cochrane reviews. bNot always applicable, e.g. diagnostics: it is not a field in the QUADAS tool; NR Not reported