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