Skip to main content

Table 3 Methodological characteristics for non-Cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews published in 2014, overall and by type of review question

From: A descriptive analysis of non-Cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews published in 2014

Methodological characteristics

Overall (n = 1598)

Type of review questiona

Therapeutic (n = 753)

Epidemiology (n = 701)

Diagnostic/ Prognostic (n = 91)

Other (n = 53)

Objective stated, n (%)

1587 (99.3)

750 (99.6)

694 (99.0)

90 (98.9)

53 (100.0)

Primary outcome(s) specified, n (%)

374 (23.4)

281 (37.3)

74 (10.6)

17 (18.7)

2 (3.8)

When not stated, outcomes of interest can be inferred, n (%)

1099 (89.8)

405 (85.8)

580 (92.5)

65 (87.8)

49 (96.1)

Quality of included studies assessedb, n (%)

953 (59.6)

532 (70.7)

325 (46.4)

63 (69.2)

33 (62.3)

Certainty of the body of evidence assessed using GRADEb, n (%)

 Yes

72 (4.5)

58 (7.7)

12 (1.7)

2 (2.2)

0 (0.0)

 Used another method

30 (1.9)

17 (2.3)

8 (1.1)

1 (1.1)

4 (7.5)

 No

1492 (93.4)

674 (89.5)

681 (97.1)

88 (96.7)

49 (92.5)

Evidence synthesis method, n (%)

 Narrative only

741 (46.4)

352 (46.7)

307 (43.8)

36 (39.6)

46 (86.8)

 Statistical

857 (53.6)

401 (53.3)

394 (56.2)

55 (60.4)

7 (13.2)

When synthesized statistically, analysis method used, n (%)

 Meta-analysis

827 (96.5)

384 (95.8)

387 (98.2)

50 (90.9)

6 (85.7)

 Network meta-analysis

5 (0.6)

5 (1.2)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

 Individual patient data meta- analysis

12 (1.4)

8 (2.0)

0 (0.0)

4 (7.3)

0 (0.0)

 Otherc

13 (1.5)

4 (1.0)

7 (1.8)

1 (1.8)

1 (14.3)

  1. GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [43]
  2. aBased on the classification system previously suggested by Page et al. [9]
  3. bDenominator excludes empty reviews (n = 4, all categorized as therapeutic)
  4. cAny other form of analysis (e.g., mathematical modelling, regression)