Table 1.
MOOSE checklist for meta-analyses of observational studies.
| Item no. | Recommendation | Reported on page no. |
|---|---|---|
| REPORTING OF BACKGROUND SHOULD INCLUDE | ||
| 1 | Problem definition | 2 |
| 2 | Hypothesis statement | 2 |
| 3 | Description of study outcome(s) | 2–3 |
| 4 | Type of exposure or intervention used | 2–3 |
| 5 | Type of study designs used | 3 |
| 6 | Study population | 2–3 |
| 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, Additional File 1 |
| 9 | The effort to include all available studies, including contact with authors | 3–4 |
| 10 | Databases and registries searched | 3 |
| 11 | The search software used, name and version, including special features used (e.g., explosion) | 4 |
| 12 | Use of hand searching (e.g., reference lists of obtained articles) | 3 |
| 13 | List of citations located and those excluded, including justification | 4, Table 2, Figure 1 |
| 14 | Method of addressing articles published in languages other than English | – |
| 15 | Method of handling abstracts and unpublished studies | 4 |
| 16 | Description of any contact with authors | 4 |
| REPORTING OF METHODS SHOULD INCLUDE | ||
| 17 | Description of relevance or appropriateness of studies assembled for assessing the hypothesis to be tested | 4–5 |
| 18 | The rationale for the selection and coding of data (discouraging, sound clinical principles, or convenience) | 4 |
| 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) | 5 |
| 21 | Assessment of study quality, including blinding of quality assessors, stratification, or regression on possible predictors of study results | 5 |
| 22 | Assessment of heterogeneity | 5 |
| 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 | 5–6 |
| 24 | Provision of appropriate tables and graphics | Tables 1, 2 |
| REPORTING OF RESULTS SHOULD INCLUDE | ||
| 25 | Graphic summarizing individual study estimates and the overall estimate | Figures 1–7 |
| 26 | A table giving descriptive information for each study included | Table 2 |
| 27 | Results of sensitivity testing (e.g., subgroup analysis) | Figure 3 |
| 28 | Indication of statistical uncertainty of findings | 6–7 |