Skip to main content
. 2020 May 18;20:121. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-00966-4

Table 1.

Tools reported by the systematic review/meta-analysis authors that were used for the assessment of quality or risk of bias of the included studies more than once (N = 678)

Tool N (%)
Cochrane tool for RoB assessment 251 (37)
 Non-modified version 241 (36)
 Modified version 10 (1.4)
Jadad tool 99 (15)
 Non-modified version 92 (14)
 Modified version 7 (1.0)
Newcastle-Ottawa scale or its adapted version 30 (4.4)
 Oxford scale 29 (4.3)
 Non-modified version 10 (1.5)
 Modified version 19 (2.7)
Criteria of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 24 (3.5)
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) 18 (2.7)
Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) 14 (2.0)
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) 10 (1.5)
Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) or QUADAS-2 7 (1.0)
Criteria of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 5 (0.7)
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 4 (0.6)
The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklist for RCTs 4 (0.6)
Quality in prognosis studies (QUIPS) tool 3 (0.4)
Downs and Black 3 (0.4)
Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist 2 (0.3)
Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) evaluation scale 2 (0.3)
Strengthening of the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) 2 (0.3)
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) recommendations checklist 2 (0.3)