Table S1. MOOSE checklist for meta-analyses of observational studies.
| Item No | Recommendation | Reported on page No |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting of background should include | ||
| 1 | Problem definition | 2,3-4 |
| 2 | Hypothesis statement | 2,3-4 |
| 3 | Description of study outcome(s) | 2 |
| 4 | Type of exposure or intervention used | 2 |
| 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) | N/A |
| 8 | Search strategy, including time period included in the synthesis and key words | 4 |
| 9 | Effort to include all available studies, including contact with authors | 4 |
| 10 | Databases and registries searched | 4 |
| 11 | Search software used, name and version, including special features used (eg, explosion) | N/A |
| 12 | Use of hand searching (e.g., reference lists of obtained articles) | 4 |
| 13 | List of citations located and those excluded, including justification | Figure 1 |
| 14 | Method of addressing articles published in languages other than English | N/A |
| 15 | Method of handling abstracts and unpublished studies | 5 |
| 16 | Description of any contact with authors | 5 |
| Reporting of methods should include | ||
| 17 | Description of relevance or appropriateness of studies assembled for assessing the hypothesis to be tested | 4 |
| 18 | Rationale for the selection and coding of data (e.g., sound clinical principles or convenience) | 4-5 |
| 19 | Documentation of how data were classified and coded (e.g., multiple raters, blinding and interrater reliability) | 4-5 |
| 20 | Assessment of confounding (e.g., comparability of cases and controls in studies where appropriate) | Table 2 |
| 21 | Assessment of study quality, including blinding of quality assessors, stratification or regression on possible predictors of study results | Table 2 |
| 22 | Assessment of heterogeneity | Figure1 |
| 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 | 5 |
| 24 | Provision of appropriate tables and graphics | Figures 2-6 |
| Reporting of results should include | ||
| 25 | Graphic summarizing individual study estimates and overall estimate | Figure 1 |
| 26 | Table giving descriptive information for each study included | Table 1 |
| 27 | Results of sensitivity testing (e.g., subgroup analysis) | 6 |
| 28 | Indication of statistical uncertainty of findings | 6-7 |
| Reporting of discussion should include | ||
| 29 | Quantitative assessment of bias (e.g., publication bias) | 6-7 |
| 30 | Justification for exclusion (e.g., exclusion of non-English language citations) | 4 |
| 31 | Assessment of quality of included studies | 8 |
| Reporting of conclusions should include | ||
| 32 | Consideration of alternative explanations for observed results | 9 |
| 33 | Generalization of the conclusions (i.e., appropriate for the data presented and within the domain of the literature review) | 9 |
| 34 | Guidelines for future research | 9 |
| 35 | Disclosure of funding source | 9 |
From: Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. for the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. A Proposal for Reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008. Transcribed from the original paper within the NEUROSURGERY® Editorial Office, Atlanta, GA, United Sates. August 2012.