Skip to main content

Table 4 Content of reviewers’ comments (including each reviewer and revision)

From: A descriptive analysis of the characteristics and the peer review process of systematic review protocols published in an open peer review journal from 2012 to 2017

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%