Skip to main content

Table 2 Multivariable regression analysis of potential factors for reporting quality

From: Improving the quality of reporting of systematic reviews of dose-response meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey

Influential factors Estimated regression coefficients (95%CI)
Multivariable P-value Sensitivity analysis P-value
No. of authors
  ≤ 4 Reference   Reference  
 5 ~  6 0.78 (0.35, 1.20) <  0.001 0.73 (0.28, 1.18) 0.002
 7~  8 0.86 (0.37, 1.36) 0.001 0.68 (0.18, 1.19) 0.008
  > 8 1.15 (0.61, 1.70) <  0.001 0.99 (0.48, 1.49) <  0.001
Year of publication
 2011 Reference   Reference  
 2012 0.39 (−0.41, 1.20) 0.338 0.77 (− 0.05, 1.58) 0.066
 2013 1.23 (0.28, 2.18) 0.011 1.12 (0.18, 2.05) 0.020
 2014 0.93 (0.13, 1.74) 0.023 1.08 (0.20, 1.96) 0.016
 2015 1.35 (0.58, 2.11) 0.001 1.39 (0.54, 2.25) 0.001
 2016 2.01 (1.28, 2.75) <  0.001 2.19 (1.38, 3.00) <  0.001
 2017 (up to July-31) 2.39 (1.60, 3.18) <  0.001 2.56 (1.62, 3.52) <  0.001
 Linear trend test 0.38 (0.28, 0.47) <  0.001 0.38 (0.27, 0.50) <  0.001
Use of reporting guidance
 No Reference   Reference  
 Yes 0.98 (0.63, 1.32) <  0.001 0.99 (0.61, 1.37) <  0.001
Region
 European Reference   Reference  
 Asia Pacific −0.21 (− 0.66, 0.23) 0.348 − 0.28 (− 0.74, 0.17) 0.224
 America − 0.18 (−1.31, 0.95) 0.752 − 0.54 (−1.61, 0.53) 0.320
Methodologist involved
 No Reference   Reference  
 Yes 0.86 (0.42, 1.32) <  0.001 0.78 (0.36, 1.19) <  0.001
  1. The multivariable regression was based on weighted least square linear regression; the sensitivity analysis was based on generalized estimating equation (GEE); both the two methods with the variance estimation based on robust standard error