|
Methods
|
Searching
|
The information sources, in detail (e.g., databases, registers, personal files, expert informants, agencies, hand-searching), and any restrictions (years considered, publication status, language of publication)
|
|
|
Selection
|
The inclusion and exclusion criteria (defining population, intervention, principal outcomes, and study design)
|
|
|
Validity assessment
|
The criteria and process used (e.g., masked conditions, quality assessment, and their findings)
|
|
|
Data abstraction
|
The process or processes used (e.g., completed independently, in duplicate)
|
|
|
Study characteristics
|
The type of study design, participants’ characteristics, details of intervention, outcome definitions, &c, and how clinical heterogeneity was assessed
|
|
|
Quantitative data Synthesis
|
The principal measures of effect (e.g., relative risk), method of combining results (statistical testing and confidence intervals), handling of missing data; how statistical heterogeneity was assessed; a rationale for any a-priori sensitivity and subgroup analyses; and any assessment of publication bias
|
|
Results
|
Trial flow
|
Provide a meta-analysis profile summarizing trial flow (see figure)
|
|
|
Study characteristics
|
Present descriptive data for each trial (e.g., age, sample size, intervention, dose, duration, follow-up period)
|
|
|
Quantitative data synthesis
|
Report agreement on the selection and validity assessment; present simple summary results (for each treatment group in each trial, for each primary outcome); present data needed to calculate effect sizes and confidence intervals in intention-to-treat analyses (e.g. 2×2 tables of counts, means and SDs (standard deviations), proportions)
|
|
Discussion
|
|
Summarize key findings; discuss clinical inferences based on internal and external validity; interpret the results in light of the totality of available evidence; describe potential biases in the review process (e.g., publication bias); and suggest a future research agenda
|
|
Quality of reporting of meta-analyses
|
|
Reprinted from Lancet, Vol 354, Moher, D., D. J. Cook, S. Eastwood, I. Olkin, D. Rennie, D. F. Stroup, and the QUOROM Group. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement, 1896-1900, Copyright 1999, with permission from Elsevier.
|