Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of systematic reviews with an IfR statement

From: Evaluation of ‘implications for research’ statements in systematic reviews of interventions in advanced cancer patients – a meta-research study

IfR results

Total

 

N = 210 (%)

Location of IfR statement:

 Discussion

137 (65.2)

 Conclusion

44 (21.0)

 Both, discussion and conclusion

29 (13.8)

IfR statement and primary outcome:

 Primary outcome not defined

95 (45.2)

 IfR do not refer to primary outcome

90 (42.9)

 IfR do refer to primary outcome

25 (11.9)

PICO elements (alone or any combination):a

 Intervention

121 (57.6)

 Patient

113 (53.8)

 Study design

107 (51.0)

 Outcome

55 (26.2)

 Control

27 (12.9)

Relevant combinations of PICO elements and study design:b

 Patient and intervention

71 (33.8)

 Patient, intervention and study design

34 (16.2)

 Patient, intervention and outcome

21 (10.0)

 Patient, intervention, outcome, study design

8 (3.8)

Concepts underlying GRADE domains addressed:c

 Risk for bias

2 (1.0)

 Imprecision

1 (0.5)

 Inconsistency

1 (0.5)

 Not mentioned

206 (98.1)

Additional IfR elements:d

 Costs effectiveness

9 (4.3)

 Reporting standards

4 (1.9)

 IPD meta-analysis

4 (1.9)

Stop statement for further research:

 No

207 (98.6)

 Yes

3 (1.4)

  1. IPD Individual patient data, PICO patient intervention, control, and outcome
  2. a Numbers do not add up to 210 due to multiple counting
  3. b Numbers do not add up to 210 because the chosen combinations were of high interest and were selected from various other combinations
  4. c Combinations of GRADE domains not assessed due to their low frequency
  5. d Open category in data extraction, which allowed for no data and multiple additional IfR elements per systematic review