Supplemental File 1.
MOOSE checklist
| Item number | Recommendation | Reported on page number |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting of background should include | ||
| 1 | Problem definition | 2 |
| 2 | Hypothesis statement | 2 |
| 3 | Description of study outcome(s) | 2 |
| 4 | Type of exposure or intervention used | None |
| 5 | Type of study designs used | 2 |
| 6 | Study population | 2 |
| Reporting of search strategy should include | ||
| 7 | Qualifications of searchers (e.g., librarians and investigators) | 3 |
| 8 | Search strategy, including time period included in the synthesis and keywords | 3 |
| 9 | Effort to include groups available studies, including contact with authors | 3 |
| 10 | Databases and registries searched | 2 |
| 11 | Search software used, name and version, including special features used (e.g., explosion) | 2 |
| 12 | Use of hand searching (e.g., reference lists of obtained articles) | None |
| 13 | List of citations located and those excluded, including justification | 3,4 |
| 14 | Method of addressing articles published in languages other than English | None |
| 15 | Method of handling abstracts and unpublished studies | 2 |
| 16 | Description of any contact with authors | None |
| Reporting of methods should include | ||
| 17 | Description of relevance or appropriateness of studies assembled for assessing the hypothesis to be tested | 3 |
| 18 | Rationale for the selection and coding of data (e.g., sound clinical principles or convenience) | None |
| 19 | Documentation of how data were classified and coded (e.g., multiple raters, blinding, and interrater reliability) | None |
| 20 | Assessment of confounding (e.g., comparability of cases and controls in studies where appropriate) | 3 |
| 21 | Assessment of study quality, including blinding of quality assessors, stratification or regression on possible predictors of study results | 3 |
| 22 | Assessment of heterogeneity | 3 |
| 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 | 3 |
| 24 | Provision of appropriate tables and graphs | 3 |
| Reporting of results should include | ||
| 25 | Graphs summarizing individual study estimates and overgroups estimate | 3 |
| 26 | Table giving descriptive information for each study included | 4 |
| 27 | Results of sensitivity testing (e.g., subgroup analysis) | 4,5 |
| 28 | Indication of statistical uncertainty of findings | None |
| Reporting of discussion should include | ||
| 29 | Quantitative assessment of bias (e.g., publication bias) | 7 |
| 30 | Justification for exclusion (e.g., exclusion of non-English language citations) | None |
| 31 | Assessment of quality of included studies | 7 |
| Reporting of conclusions should include | ||
| 32 | Consideration of alternative explanations for observed results | 7 |
| 33 | Generalization of the conclusions (i.e., appropriate for the data presented and within the domain of the literature review) | 7 |
| 34 | Guidelines for future research | 7 |
| 35 | Disclosure of funding source | None |
MOOSE: Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.