Skip to main content

Table 4 Methodological quality of the sampled 80 meta-epidemiological (ME) studies

From: Trial-level characteristics associate with treatment effect estimates: a systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies

Methodological items

Yes

No

No. of ME studies

% (95% CI)

No. of ME studies

% (95% CI)

M1. Did the author state that they had published a protocol prior to the conduct of the ME study?

23

29 (19 to 39)

57

71 (61 to 81)

M2. Did the author use a comprehensive literature search strategy?

46

58 (46 to 69)

34

42 (31 to 54)

M3. Did the author give a clear description of inclusion criteria and reasons for exclusion?

74

92 (87 to 98)

6

8 (2 to 13)

M4. Whether selection process was reported?

69

86 (78 to 94)

11

14 (6 to 22)

M5. Did the author perform selection process in duplicate?

40

50 (39 to 61)

40

50 (39 to 61)

M6. Did the author perform data extraction in duplicate?a

52

88 (79 to 97)

7

12 (3 to 21)

M7. Did the author provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?b

12

15 (7 to 23)

65

81 (72 to 90)

M8. Did the author evaluate the heterogeneity between included meta-analyses or trials or ME studies?c

59

87 (78 to 95)

9

13 (5 to 22)

M8i. Did the author perform an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity?c

35

83 (72 to 95)

7

17 (5 to 28)

M9. Whether analysis was adjusted on meta-confounders for ME studies estimating a combined difference of treatment effect?c

54

79 (70 to 89)

14

21 (11 to 30)

M10. Whether clustering of trials within meta- analyses was taken into account for ME studies based on a collection of meta-analyses or previous ME studies?c

53

87 (78 to 96)

8

13 (4 to 22)

M11. Did the author report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the ME study?

74

92 (86 to 98)

6

8 (2 to 14)

M12. Whether checking experimental and control arms were reported?

40

51 (39 to 62)

40

49 (38 to 61)

M13. Whether the author reclassified of outcomes reported to have the same sense of interpretation?

56

71 (61 to 81)

24

29 (19 to 39)

M14. Did the author give a clear definition of trial characteristics evaluated in ME studies?

72

90 (83 to 97)

8

10 (3 to 17)

M15. Did the author assess the trial characteristics evaluated in duplicate?

64

80 (71 to 89)

16

20 (11 to 29)

M16. Did the author assess the methodological quality of the included ME studies or meta-analyses or trials?

26

33 (22 to 44)

54

67 (56 to 78)

  1. aDenominator is 59 as 21 ME studies did not report related information. Among 52 ME studies perform data extraction in duplicate, 34 (57.6%) ME studies was fully or partly in duplicate, 6 (10.2%) was checked by a second reviewer, 3 (5.1%) mentioned contact to authors and 9 (15.3%) used more than one aforementioned method. bThree ME studies provided a list of excluded studies but without reasons. cDenominator is not equal to 80, as some ME studies were not applicable to this item