Skip to main content

Table 1 Main characteristics of included systematic reviews (n = 235)

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%)

  1. aAdds to more than 100% because some reviews were counted in more than one option