Table 4 Content of reviewers’ comments (including each reviewer and revision)
Content of reviewers’ comments | Proportion of protocols with comments (n = 53) | Comments per protocol (mean ± SD) (n = 53) | Proportion of comments suggesting amendments (n = 450) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
PRISMA-P item | ||||
8 | Eligibility criteria | 66.0% | 2.1 ± 2.7 | 16.1% |
9 | Information sources | 52.8% | 0.9 ± 1.1 | 39.6% |
10 | Search strategy | 34.0% | 0.6 ± 1.2 | 50.0% |
11a | Data management | 13.2% | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 0.0% |
11b | Selection process | 30.2% | 0.5 ± 0.9 | 12.5% |
11c | Data collection process | 24.5% | 0.3 ± 0.7 | 11.1% |
12 | Data items | 34.0% | 0.5 ± 0.9 | 31.0% |
13 | Outcomes and priorization | 20.8% | 0.4 ± 0.9 | 21.1% |
14 | Risk of bias in individual studies | 49.1% | 0.7 ± 0.9 | 31.6% |
15a | Criteria for quantitative synthesis | 13.2% | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 11.1% |
15b | Aspects of quantitative synthesis | 41.5% | 0.9 ± 1.5 | 14.0% |
15c | Additional analyses | 39.6% | 0.7 ± 1.4 | 31.4% |
15d | Type of summary if quantitative synthesis not appropriate | 15.1% | 0.2 ± 0.6 | 16.7% |
16 | Meta-bias (es) | 17.0% | 0.2 ± 0.4 | 10.0% |
17 | Confidence in cumulative evidence | 13.2% | 0.1 ± 0.3 | 42.9% |