Table 1.
Checklist summarizing compliance with meta-analysis of observational studies in Epidemiology Guidelines
| MOOSE criteriaa | Met (yes/no) |
| Reporting background should include | |
| Problem definition | Yes |
| Hypothesis statement | No |
| Description of study outcome(s) | Yes |
| Type of exposure or intervention used | Yes |
| Type of study designs used | Yes |
| Study population | Yes |
| Reporting of search strategy should include | |
| Qualifications of searchers (e.g., librarians and investigators) | Yes |
| Search strategy, including time period included in the synthesis and keywords | Yes |
| Effort to include all available studies, including contact with authors | Yes |
| Databases and registries searched | Yes |
| Search software used, name and version, including special features used (e.g., explosion) | Yes |
| Use of hand searching (e.g., reference lists of obtained articles) | Yes |
| List of citations located and those excluded, including justification | Yes |
| Method of addressing articles published in languages other than English | Yes |
| Method of handling abstracts and unpublished studies | No |
| Description of any contact with authors | No |
| Reporting methods should include | |
| Description of relevance or appropriateness of studies assembled for assessing the hypothesis to be tested | Yes |
| Rationale for the selection and coding of data (e.g., sound clinical principles or convenience) | Yes |
| Documentation of how data were classified and coded (e.g., multiple raters, blinding, and interrater reliability) | Yes |
| Assessment of confounding (e.g., comparability of cases and controls in studies where appropriate) | No |
| Assessment of study quality, including blinding of quality assessors; stratification or regression on possible predictors of study results | Yes |
| Assessment of heterogeneity | Yes |
| 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 | Yes |
| Provision of appropriate tables and graphics | Yes |
| Reporting of results should include | |
| Graphic summarizing individual study estimates and overall estimate | Yes |
| Table giving descriptive information for each study included | Yes |
| Results of sensitivity testing (e.g., subgroup analysis) | No |
| Indication of statistical uncertainty of findings | Yes |
| Reporting of discussion should include | |
| Quantitative assessment of bias (e.g., publication bias) | NA |
| Justification for exclusion (e.g., exclusion of non-English-language citations) | Yes |
| Assessment of quality of included studies | Yes |
| Reporting of conclusions should include | |
| Consideration of alternative explanations for observed results | Yes |
| Generalization of the conclusions (e.g., appropriate for the data presented and within the domain of the literature review) | Yes |
| Guidelines for future research | Yes |
| Disclosure of funding source | Yes |
a
Adapted from Stroup et al[29]. Used with permission. MOOSE: Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiolgy; NA: Not applicable.