Table 2 Method characteristics of included reviews
From: A scoping review on the methodological and reporting quality of scoping reviews in China
Total (n = 392, %) | English (n = 238, %) | Chinese (n = 154, %) | P† | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Protocol and review design | Protocol | < 0.001 | |||
Registered | 30(7.7) | 30(12.6) | 0(0) | ||
Published | 4(1.0) | 4(1.7) | 0(0) | ||
Research question | 0.033‡ | ||||
Clearly reported | 156(39.8) | 109(45.8) | 47(30.5) | ||
Simply reported | 118(30.1) | 60(25.2) | 58(37.7) | ||
Inferred | 115(29.3) | 66(27.7) | 49(31.8) | ||
Not reported | 3(0.8) | 3(1.3) | 0(0) | ||
Inclusion criteria | 0.174‡ | ||||
Clearly reported | 297(75.8) | 179(75.2) | 118(76.6) | ||
Simply reported | 75(19.1) | 44(18.5) | 31(20.1) | ||
Inferred | 17(4.3) | 15(6.3) | 2(1.3) | ||
Not reported | 14(3.6) | 11(4.6) | 3(1.9) | ||
Eligible study design | 0.697 | ||||
All study designs | 13(3.3) | 7(2.9) | 6(3.9) | ||
Primary and secondary research | 57(14.5) | 38(16.0) | 19(12.3) | ||
Primary research only | 201(51.3) | 120(50.4) | 81(52.6) | ||
Secondary research only | 7(1.8) | 3(1.3) | 4(2.6) | ||
Not reported | 114(29.1) | 70(29.4) | 44(28.6) | ||
Identifying relevant studies | Search strategy | 0.009‡ | |||
Clearly reported | 200(51.0) | 136(57.1) | 64(41.6) | ||
Keywords only | 178(45.4) | 91(38.2) | 87(56.5) | ||
Not reported | 14(3.6) | 11(4.6) | 3(1.9) | ||
Databases searched | 0.002‡ | ||||
Searched > 1 database | 369(94.1) | 217(91.2) | 152(98.7) | ||
Searched only 1 database | 21(5.4) | 20(8.4) | 1(0.6) | ||
Not reported | 2(0.5) | 1(0.4) | 1(0.6) | ||
Additional search strategy | |||||
Grey literature searched | 109(27.8) | 70(29.4) | 39(25.3) | 0.005 | |
Google Scholar | 43(11.0) | 38(16.0) | 5(3.2) | ||
OpenGrey | 18(4.6) | 13(5.5) | 5(3.2) | ||
Google search | 11(2.8) | 8(3.4) | 3(1.9) | ||
ProQuest dissertations | 7(1.8) | 5(2.1) | 2(1.3) | ||
National drug catalogs | 6(1.5) | 0(0) | 6(3.9) | ||
Consulted information specialist | 21(5.4) | 18(7.6) | 3(1.9) | < 0.001 | |
Consulted content experts | 14(3.6) | 11(4.6) | 3(1.9) | 0.164 | |
Manual searching | 115(29.3) | 90(37.8) | 25(16.2) | < 0.001 | |
Updated search | 18(4.6) | 16(6.7) | 2(1.3) | 0.012 | |
Limits applied | |||||
Limited by study design | 268(68.4) | 163(68.5) | 105(68.2) | 0.798 | |
Limited by date | 344(87.8) | 198(83.2) | 146(94.8) | 0.003 | |
Limited by language | 278(70.9) | 172(72.3) | 106(68.8) | 0.173 | |
Title and abstract screening details | 0.154 | ||||
≥ 2 independent reviewers | 311(79.3) | 182(76.5) | 129(83.8) | ||
1 reviewer + 2 verifiers | 1(0.3) | 1(0.4) | 0(0) | ||
1 reviewer + 1 verifier | 4(1.0) | 4(1.7) | 0(0) | ||
1 reviewer only | 8(2.0) | 7(2.9) | 1(0.6) | ||
Done but unclear reviewers | 51(13.0) | 35(14.7) | 16(10.4) | ||
Not reported | 17(4.3) | 9(3.8) | 8(5.2) | ||
Full-text screening details | 0.238 | ||||
≥ 2 independent reviewers | 312(79.6) | 183(76.9) | 129(83.8) | ||
1 reviewer + 2 verifiers | 1(0.3) | 1(0.4) | 0(0) | ||
1 reviewer + 1 verifier | 4(1.0) | 4(1.7) | 0(0) | ||
1 reviewer only | 5(1.3) | 4(1.7) | 1(0.6) | ||
Done but unclear reviewers | 53(13.5) | 37(15.5) | 16(10.4) | ||
Not reported | 17(4.3) | 9(3.8) | 8(5.2) | ||
Data abstraction | Pre-defined form | 119(30.4) | 65(27.3) | 54(35.1) | 0.103 |
Data charting details | 304(77.6) | 167(70.2) | 137(89.0) | < 0.001 | |
Data charting process | < 0.001 | ||||
≥ 2 independent reviewers | 226(57.7) | 120(50.4) | 106(68.8) | ||
1 reviewer + 1 verifier | 14(3.6) | 13(5.5) | 1(0.6) | ||
1 reviewer only | 5(1.3) | 3(1.3) | 2(1.3) | ||
Done but unclear reviewers | 113(28.8) | 74(31.1) | 39(25.3) | ||
Not reported | 34(8.7) | 28(11.8) | 6(3.9) | ||
Quality appraisal | Quality appraisal | 56(14.3) | 40(16.8) | 16(10.4) | < 0.001 |
Cochrane ROB tool | 8(2.0) | 7(2.9) | 1(0.6) | ||
STROBE* | 5(1.3) | 4(1.7) | 1(0.6) | ||
AMSTAR-2 | 5(1.3) | 5(2.1) | 0(0) | ||
Results | Synthesis | ||||
Meta-analysis conducted | 6(1.5) | 5(2.1) | 1(0.6) | 0.243 | |
Formal qualitative analysis | 162(41.3) | 135(56.7) | 27(17.5) | < 0.001 | |
Reporting | |||||
Flow diagram | 302(77.0) | 212(89.1) | 90(58.4) | < 0.001 | |
Data in tabular format | 349(89.0) | 209(87.8) | 140(90.9) | 0.338 | |
Data in graphical format | 122(31.1) | 97(40.8) | 25(16.2) | < 0.001 | |
Discussion | Recommended policy/practice | 254(64.8) | 154(64.7) | 100(64.9) | 0.963 |
Recommended future research | 291 (74.2) | 172(72.3) | 119(77.3) | 0.269 | |
Recommended systematic review | 25(6.4) | 18(7.6) | 7(4.5) | 0.472 | |
Limitations | 243(62.0) | 193(81.1) | 50(32.5) | < 0.001 | |
Strengths | 90(23.0) | 68(28.6) | 22(14.3) | 0.001 | |