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