Table 2 The results of search databases, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction for SR/MA
Variable | Number (%) |
|---|---|
Number of databases used in SR/MA, n = 382 | |
 1–2 | 44 (11.5) |
 3–5 | 241 (63.1) |
 6–10 | 75 (19.6) |
  > 10 | 22 (5.8) |
Searched Grey Literature Databases, n = 378 | 186 (49.2) |
Conduct a manual search, n = 380 | |
 Always | 171 (45.0) |
 Often | 92 (24.2) |
 Sometimes | 64 (16.8) |
 Seldom | 35 (9.2) |
 Never | 18 (4.7) |
While extracting the data, you accidentally found a new relevant paper. Did you include this paper via manual search or other sources? n = 371 | |
 Yes | 351 (94.6) |
 No | 20 (5.4) |
Did you update the search to get more recent papers, n = 370 | |
 Yes | 323 (87.3) |
 No | 47 (12.7) |
Tools used to evaluate the risk of bias of clinical trials, n = 351 | |
 Cochrane Collaboration’s tool | 263 (74.9) |
 Other (Downs & Black, CONSORT, MODIFIED JADAD, CAMARADES TOOL, Pedro, GRADE….) | 88 (25.1) |
Number of reviewers in a team to extract the data, n = 384 | |
 One reviewer extracts it, another or more reviewers check it | 116 (30.2) |
 Two reviewers extract it | 223 (58.1) |
 Three reviewers extract it | 20 (5.2) |
 Four or more reviewers extract it | 25 (6.5) |
The original articles give the data in only figures or graphical representation, n = 376 | |
 Contact authors to get raw data | 211 (56.1) |
 I did not know there is a digital software to extract it | 75 (19.9) |
 Use a digital software to extract it | 77 (20.5) |
 I did not extract it because I think the digital software is unreliable | 13 (3.5) |
The data used in extracting the survival percentage. n = 356 | |
 Raw data | 118 (33.1) |
 Percentage estimated from Kaplan-Meier curve | 50 (14.0) |
 I have never analyzed it | 177 (49.7) |
 Other | 11 (3.1) |