Skip to main content

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

From: Systematic reviews of prognosis studies: a critical appraisal of five core clinical journals

Item on MOOSE checklist Proportion fulfilled 95% C.I.
Lower Upper
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15 - Method of handling abstracts and unpublished studies 0.28 0.22 0.34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
  1. Items in italics are met by <70% of reviews