Table 2 Quality assessment of SRs of prognosis based on the MOOSE checklist

Background

1 - Problem definition

0.99

0.96

1.00

2 - Hypothesis statement

0.97

0.94

0.99

3 - Description of study outcome(s)

0.77

0.71

0.83

4 - Type of exposure or intervention used

0.92

0.87

0.95

5 - Type of study design used

0.88

0.83

0.92

6 - Study population

0.59

0.52

0.66

Search strategy

7 - Qualification of searchers (e.g., librarians and investigators)

0.31

0.25

0.38

8 - Search strategy, including time period included in the synthesis and keywords

0.77

0.70

0.82

9 - Effort to include all available studies, including contact with authors

0.53

0.46

0.59

10 - Databases and registries searched

0.88

0.83

0.92

11 - Search software used, name and version, including special features used

0.29

0.23

0.36

12 - Use of hand searching (e.g., reference lists of obtained articles)

0.72

0.65

0.78

13 - List of citations located and those excluded, including justifications

0.37

0.31

0.44

14 - Method of addressing articles published in languages other than English

0.42

0.35

0.49

15 - Method of handling abstracts and unpublished studies

0.28

0.22

0.34

16 - Description of any contact with authors

0.42

0.36

0.49

Methods

17 - Description of relevance or appropriateness of studies assembled for assessing the hypothesis to be tested

0.72

0.65

0.78

18 - Rationale for the selection and coding of data (e.g., sound clinical principles or convenience)

0.69

0.63

0.75

19 - Documentation of how data were classified and coded (e.g., multiple raters, blinding, and interrater reliability)

0.69

0.62

0.75

20 - Assessment of confounding (e.g., comparability of cases and controls in studies where appropriate)

0.49

0.42

0.56

21 - Assessment of study quality, including blinding of quality assessors; stratification or regression on possible predictors of study results

0.46

0.39

0.53

22 - Assessment of heterogeneity

0.84

0.78

0.88

23 - Description of statistical methods (e.g., complete description of fixed or random effects model, 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

0.83

0.77

0.88

24 - Provision of appropriate tables and graphics

0.32

0.25

0.39

Results

25 - Graphic summarizing individual study estimates and overall estimates

0.77

0.70

0.82

26 - Table giving descriptive information for each study included

0.84

0.78

0.88

27 - Results of sensitivity testing (e.g., subgroup analysis)

0.74

0.68

0.80

28 - Indication of statistical uncertainty of findings

0.84

0.78

0.88

Discussion

29 - Quantitative assessment of bias (e.g., publication bias)

0.54

0.47

0.60

30 - Justification for exclusion (e.g., exclusion of non-English-language citations)

0.41

0.34

0.48

31 - Assessment of quality of included studies

0.47

0.40

0.55

Conclusions

32 - Consideration of alternative explanations for observed results

0.64

0.57

0.71

33 - Generalization of the conclusions (i.e., appropriate for the data presented and within the domain of the literature review)

0.93

0.88

0.96

34 - Guidelines for future research

0.66

0.59

0.72

35 - Disclosure of funding source

0.80

0.74

0.85