Skip to main content

Table 1 Criteria for evaluating quality of reporting SMAs

From: A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of survival analyses of tuberculosis outcomes in Africa

Criteria Items assessed Quality of reporting
Adequate Inadequate Not reported
Estimation of sample size Statistical power; hypothesised effect estimate; effect size; alpha level; prevalence of exposure and probability of the expected outcome All of these items reported for prospective studies.
For retrospective studies, post hoc power estimation or detectable difference
At least one item was not reported No sample size estimation information provided
Follow-up time Start and exit dates and aggregate follow-up time (median/person-time) Reported all these items At least one item was not reported None of the items was reported
Survival curves Number of patients at risk at the bottom of the graph; markings to indicate when participants were censored; axes were clearly labelled and used different colors/type of lines to distinguish curves Reported all these items At least one item was not reported No survival curve was plotted
Comparison of survival curves Methods for group comparisons and their test results (p-values) Reported all these items At least one item was not reported No comparison was done
Reporting measures of effect in SAMs Measures of effect and uncertainty among studies reporting regression analysis Correct measure of effect and uncertainty reported Incorrect measure of effect or no measure of uncertainty No measure of effect and uncertainty reported
Test of survival regression models underlying assumptions Survival regression models used; statistical method used to test underlying assumptions and test results Reported all these items At least one of the items not reported All the items not reported
Analysis of hierarchical clustering Presence of clustering; methods of investigating heterogeneity and correct method for adjustment Test of investigating heterogeneity and correct method for adjustment where there was evidence of heterogeneity reported At least one of the items not reported No consideration for clustering