Skip to main content

Table 1 Basic characteristics of included systematic reviews on adverse events

From: Methodological quality for systematic reviews of adverse events with surgical interventions: a cross-sectional survey

Basic characteristics No. of systematic reviews (N = 127)
Year
 2015–2017 81 (63.78%)
 2018–2019 (4 published in 2020 were online first in 2019) 46 (36.22%)
Region of corresponding author
 America (North and South) 32 (25.20%)
 Asia 35 (27.56%)
 European 54 (42.52%)
 Oceania 6 (4.72%)
Reporting guideline claimed by review authors
 PRISMA 64 (50.39%)
 MOOSE 5 (3.94%)
 Cochrane Handbooka 3 (2.36%)
 PRISMA and MOOSE 1 (0.79%)
 PRISMA-Pa 1 (0.79%)
 No 53 (41.73%)
Use of AMSTAR tool
 Yes 5 (3.94%)
 No 122 (96.06%)
Language
 English 125 (98.43%)
 Other languages 2 (1.57%)
Type of systematic reviews
 Quantitative review (with meta-analysis) 96 (75.59%)
 Narrative review (without meta-analysis) 31 (24.41%)
Type of study for meta-analysis
 Randomized controlled trial (RCT) 47 (37.01%)
 Non-randomized study of intervention (NRSI) 25 (19.69%)
 Both RCT and NRSI 46 (36.22%)
 Not reported 9 (7.09%)
Study number (Median, first and third quartiles) 14 (8 to 28)
 2–10 48 (37.80%)
 11–20 36 (28.35%)
 21–30 18 (14.17%)
  > 30 25 (19.69)
Funding
 Non-profit 28 (22.05%)
 Profit 2 (1.57%)
 Not funded 58 (45.67%)
 Not reported 39 (30.71%)
Use of GRADE
 Yes 13 (10.24%)
 No 1144 (89.76%)
  1. GRADE Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations [31]
  2. aPlease note that the Cochrane handbook is not a reporting guideline, and PRISMA-P is designed for the development of Protocol of systematic review not for systematic reviews. These two would not normally be appropriate guidelines for reporting