Supplementary Table 2.
Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist for meta-analyses of observational studies
| Item number | Recommendation | Reported on page number |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Reporting of background should include | ||
| 1 | Problem definition | 4 |
| 2 | Hypothesis statement | 5 |
| 3 | Description of study outcome(s) | 7 |
| 4 | Type of exposure or intervention used | 5–6 |
| 5 | Type of study designs used | 5–6 |
| 6 | Study population | 5–6 |
|
| ||
| Reporting of search strategy should include | ||
|
| ||
| 7 | Qualifications of searchers (e.g., librarians and investigators) | 5–7 |
| 8 | Search strategy, including time period included in the synthesis and key words | 5–7 |
| 9 | Effort to include all available studies, including contact with authors | 6 |
| 10 | Databases and registries searched | 5 |
| 11 | Search software used, name and version, including special features used (e.g., explosion) | 6 |
| 12 | Use of hand searching (e.g., reference lists of obtained articles) | 6 |
| 13 | List of citations located and those excluded, including justification | Supplementary Table 3 |
| 14 | Method of addressing articles published in languages other than English | 5–6 |
| 15 | Method of handling abstracts and unpublished studies | 5–6 |
| 16 | Description of any contact with authors | 5–6 |
|
| ||
| Reporting of methods should include | ||
|
| ||
| 17 | Description of relevance or appropriateness of studies assembled for assessing the hypothesis to be tested | 8–16 |
| 18 | Rationale for the selection and coding of data (e.g., sound clinical principles or convenience) | 8–16 |
| 19 | Documentation of how data were classified and coded (e.g., multiple raters, blinding and interrater reliability) | 8–16 |
| 20 | Assessment of confounding (e.g., comparability of cases and controls in studies where appropriate) | 8–16 |
| 21 | Assessment of study quality, including blinding of quality assessors, stratification or regression on possible predictors of study results | 8–16 |
| 22 | Assessment of heterogeneity | 8–16 |
| 23 | Description of statistical methods (e.g., complete description of fixed or random effects models, justification of whether the chosen models account for predictors of study results, dose-response models, or cumulative meta-analysis) in sufficient detail to be replicated | 8–16 |
| 24 | Provision of appropriate tables and graphics | Figure 2–7 and Supplementary Figure 1 (93.2KB, tif) –16 (77.2KB, tif) |
|
| ||
| Reporting of results should include | ||
|
| ||
| 25 | Graphic summarizing individual study estimates and overall estimate | Figure 2–7 and Supplementary Figure 1 (93.2KB, tif) –16 (77.2KB, tif) |
| 26 | Table giving descriptive information for each study included | Table 2 |
| 27 | Results of sensitivity testing (e.g., subgroup analysis) | Supplementary Figure 1 (93.2KB, tif) –16 (77.2KB, tif) |
| 28 | Indication of statistical uncertainty of findings | 8–16 |
|
| ||
| Reporting of discussion should include | ||
|
| ||
| 29 | Quantitative assessment of bias (e.g., publication bias) | 22–23 |
| 30 | Justification for exclusion (e.g., exclusion of non-English language citations) | 22–23 |
| 31 | Assessment of quality of included studies | 22–23 |
|
| ||
| Reporting of conclusions should include | ||
|
| ||
| 32 | Consideration of alternative explanations for observed results | 17–19 |
| 33 | Generalization of the conclusions (i.e., appropriate for the data presented and within the domain of the literature review) | 22–24 |
| 34 | Guidelines for future research | 22–24 |
| 35 | Disclosure of funding source | - |
From: Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. A proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008–12