Table 1.
Summary of main findings of assessment of possible association between methodological quality, concordance between data presented and conclusions reported, take home message of article conclusions, and funding source in comparative studies of influenza vaccines
| Is there a relation between: | Odds ratio (95% CI) | Interpretation | Sensitivity analysis carried out? If yes what were the results? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Methodological quality and concordance between data presented and conclusions reported? | Aggregate moderate and high risk of bias: 16.35 (4.24 to 63.04) | Positive association between low risk of bias and concordance | No |
| Methodological quality and funding source? | Aggregate moderate and high risk of bias, excluding studies with missing funding source: 0.74 (0.19 to 2.84) | No evidence of negative association between governmental funding source and low risk of bias | Yes. Sensitivity analysis carried out on 240 possible scenarios: 1.64% of scenarios with OR <1 significant, 65.4% with OR <1 non-significant; 0.83% with OR=1; and 32.1% with OR >1 non-significant at 5% level |
| Methodological quality and take home message? | Aggregate moderate and high risk of bias: 0.19 (0.05 to 0.64) | Negative association between low risk of bias and favourable conclusion | No |
| Concordance between data presented and conclusions reported and take home message? | 0.04 (0.02 to 0.09) | Negative association between presence of concordance and favourable conclusion | No |
| Concordance between data presented and conclusions reported and funding source? | Excluding studies with missing funding source: 1.47 (0.72 to 3.07) | No evidence of positive association between concordance and government funding source at 5% significance level | Yes. Sensitivity analysis carried out on 413 possible scenarios; 16.5% of scenarios with OR <1 and non-significant, 57.9% with OR >1 non-significant, and 25.7% with OR >1 significant at 5% level |
| Funding source and take home message? | Excluding studies with missing funding source: 0.45 (0.26 to 0.90) | Evidence of negative association between favourable conclusion and government funding | Yes. Sensitivity analysis carried out on 989 possible scenarios; 47.0% of scenarios with OR <1 significant, 38.5% with OR <1 non-significant, 14.4% with OR >1 non-significant, and only 0.1% (one scenario) with OR >1 significant at 5% level |