Table 3 Individual results of the evaluations
Evaluation | Reviewer | Review or set of screenings | Number of missed studies | Number of included studies (gold standard) | Proportion of missing studies | Results of the re-analysis of the meta-analysiszz |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Edwards 2002 | 1 | Set A | 0 | 22 | 0% | n.a. |
1 | Set B | 1 | 30 | 3% | n.a. | |
1 | Set C | 3 | 31 | 10% | n.a. | |
2** | Set A | 2 | 22 | 9% | n.a. | |
2** | Set D | 2 | 20 | 10% | n.a. | |
2** | Set E | 7 | 29 | 24% | n.a. | |
3 | Set B | 1 | 30 | 3% | n.a. | |
3 | Set D | 1 | 20 | 5% | n.a. | |
3 | Set F | 5 | 24 | 21% | n.a. | |
4 | Set C | 2 | 31 | 6% | n.a. | |
4 | Set E | 0 | 29 | 0% | n.a. | |
4 | Set F | 1 | 24 | 4% | n.a. | |
Doust 2005 | 1 | Tympanometry | 1 | 33 | 3% | n.a. |
2** | Tympanometry | 1 | 33 | 3% | n.a. | |
1 | Natriuretic peptides | 0 | 20 | 0% | n.a. | |
2** | Natriuretic peptides | 0 | 20 | 0% | n.a. | |
Pham 2016 | 1 | Wilhelm 2011 | 2 | 19 | 11% | Negligible impact on findings |
1 | Greig 2012 | 2 | 36 | 6% | Negligible impact on findings | |
1 | Bucher 2015 | 0 | 18 | 0% | No impact on findings | |
2** | Wilhelm 2011 | 11 | 19 | 58% | Substantial change in findings | |
2** | Greig 2012 | 7 | 36 | 19% | Substantial change in findings | |
2** | Bucher 2015 | 3 | 18 | 17% | Substantial change in findings | |
Shemilt 2016 | 1 | Park 2015 | 1 | 169 | 1% | Negligible impact on findings |
Overall Result | 53 | 733 |