From: How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study
Characteristic | Description |
---|---|
Number of naming authors | Median (IQR): 5 (4–7) |
Range: 1–18 | |
Protocol registry or publicationa | PROSPERO register: 51 (21.7%) |
Protocol published in peer-reviewed journal: 5 (2.1%) | |
Not reported: 182 (77.4%) | |
Use of a reporting guidelinea | PRISMA: 161 (68.5%) |
MOOSE: 27 (11.5%) | |
GATHER: 2 (0.8%) | |
Not reported: 65 (27.7%) | |
External funding source | Yes: 106 (45.1%) |
No: 73 (31.1%) | |
Not reported: 56 (23.8%) | |
Number of databases searched | Median (IQR): 4 (3–6) |
Range: 1–14 | |
Databases searcheda | MEDLINE: 231 (98.3%) |
Embase: 146 (62.1%) | |
Web of Science: 93 (39.6%) | |
CENTRAL: 70 (29.8%) | |
Scopus: 72 (30.6%) | |
CINAHL: 61 (26%) | |
Search strategy presented | Full search strategy presented for at least one database: 159 (67.6%) |
Only presented terms used in the search (incomplete search strategy): 69 (29.4%) | |
Nor reported: 7 (3.0%) | |
Number of studies included in the review | Median (IQR): 24 (15–41.5) |
Range: 2–1147 | |
Quality assessment of individual studiesa | JBI: 21 (8.9%) |
JBI (adapted): 5 (2.1%) | |
Hoy, 2012: 10 (4.3%) | |
Hoy, 2012 (adapted): 7 (3.0%) | |
Loney, 1998: 6 (2.6%) | |
Loney, 1998 (adapted): 2 (0.9%) | |
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: 10 (4.3%) | |
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (adapted): 13 (5.5%) | |
Downs and Black (adapted): 2 (0.9%) | |
STROBE: 15 (6.4%) | |
STROBE (adapted): 7 (3.0%) | |
New tool (not adaptation) specific for the review: 24 (10.2%) | |
Non-validated tool, used by a similar review previously: 24 (10.2%) | |
Others: 92 (39.1%) | |
Not conducted: 47 (20%) | |
Quality of the body of evidence | GRADE: 4 (1.7%) |
Oxford: 1 (0.4%) | |
Mean STROBE score: 1 (0.4%) | |
JBI grades of recommendation: 1 (0.4%) | |
AHCPR consistency of evidence: 1 (0.4%) | |
Not conducted: 227 (96.6%) | |
Data-synthesis | Qualitative only: 83 (35.3%) |
Meta-analysis of prevalence data: 152 (64.7%) |