Skip to main content

Table 4 Case study B: comparison of additional characteristics between the existing systematic reviews (Galvao et al. [14], Jefferson et al. [15], Fell et al. [13], and McMillan et al. [16]) and our own new review

From: Use of existing systematic reviews for evidence assessments in infectious disease prevention: a comparative case study

  Galvao et al. [14] Jefferson et al. [15] Fell et al. [13] McMillan et al. [16] Own new review
Study designs RCTs, cohort studies All study designs RCTs, cohort, cross-sectional, case–control studies All study designs All study designs
Period covered Until 09/2013 Until 05/2013 Until 05/2013 Until 03/2014 Until 03/2014
Seasonal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Pandemic No Yes Yes Yes No
Meta-analysis No Yes Yes Yes No
No. of included studies 8 21 27 46 20
Risk of bias tool(s) used for RCTs Cochrane risk of bias tool Cochrane risk of bias tool NA JBI-MASTARI Cochrane risk of bias tool
Risk of bias tool(s) used for observational studies NR NOS NOS; DBC JBI-MASTARI CASP
Results of risk of bias assessment NR 10× high risk of bias; 11× unclear risk of bias NOS: median 8.5 (of 9)
DBC: median 25 (of 31)
Moderate to high quality 9× high risk of bias; 9× low risk of bias; 2× unclear risk of bias
  1. CASP Critical Appraisal Skills Program, DBC Downs and Black Checklist, NA not applicable, NOS Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale, NR not reported