Skip to main content

Table 1 Frequency distribution of items/recommended practices by domains for the total number of systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMAs)

From: Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)

  SRMAs (n = 103)
Domain: transparency
Registration
  No 46 (44.7%)
  Yes 57 (55.3%)
Protocol
  No 98 (95.1%)
  Yes 5 (4.9%)
Available searches
  No 20 (19.4%)
  Yes 83 (80.6%)
Data statement
  No 66 (64.1%)
  Yes 37 (35.9%)
Domain: completeness
Title as SRMA
  No 3 (2.9%)
  Yes 100 (97.1%)
Data sources (ab)
  No 33 (32.0%)
  Yes 70 (68.0%)
Key eligibility criteria (ab)
  No 26 (25.2%)
  Yes 77 (74.8%)
Number of included studies (ab)
  No 5 (4.9%)
  Yes 98 (95.1%)
Research question
  No 29 (28.2%)
  Yes 74 (71.8%)
PICOS explanation
  No 32 (31.1%)
  Yes 71 (68.9%)
Number of references
  No 6 (5.8%)
  Yes 97 (94.2%)
Description of sample sizes
  No 5 (4.9%)
  Yes 98 (95.1%)
Duration of included studies
  Does not apply 16 (15.5%)
  No 7 (6.8%)
  Yes 80 (77.7%)
Sources of funding
  No 7 (6.8%)
  Yes 96 (93.2%)
Potential conflicts of interest
  No 7 (6.8%)
  Yes 96 (93.2%)
Domain: participants
Description of participants (ab)  
  No 22 (21.4%)
  Yes 81 (78.6%)
Detailed studies’ characteristics
  No 15 (14.6%)
  Yes 88 (85.4%)
Domain: intervention/exposure
Description of interventions/exposures (ab)
  No 7 (6.8%)
  Yes 96 (93.2%)
Detailed studies’ characteristics
  No 15 (14.6%)
  Yes 88 (85.4%)
Domain: outcome
Main outcome of interest (ab)
  No 5 (4.9%)
  Yes 98 (95.1%)
Statistical methods
  No 18 (17.5%)
  Yes 85 (82.5%)
Statistical heterogeneity
  No 12 (11.7%)
  Yes 91 (88.3%)
Meta-analytic summary estimates
  No 31 (30.1%)
  Yes 72 (69.9%)
Statistics per study
  No 46 (44.7%)
  Yes 57 (55.3%)
Domain: methodological rigor
Searches in gray literature
  No 49 (47.6%)
  Yes 54 (52.4%)
Searches from inception or with justification
  No 8 (7.8%)
  Yes 95 (92.2%)
Number of languages
  1 62 (60.2%)
  2 11 (10.7%)
  3 7 (6.8%)
  4 1 (1.0%)
  No restriction 19 (18.4%)
  No statement 3 (2.9%)
Study selection in duplicate
  No 26 (25.2%)
  Partial yes (e.g., a sample of 50% of studies were checked by two independent researchers) 3 (2.9%)
  Yes 74 (71.8%)
Data extraction in duplicate
  No 47 (45.6%)
  Partial yes (e.g., a sample of 50% of studies were checked by two independent researchers) 1 (1.0%)
  Yes 55 (53.4%)
Description of RoB assessment
  No 5 (4.9%)
  Yes 98 (95.1%)
RoB assessment in duplicate
  No 35 (34.0%)
  Yes 68 (66.0%)
Domain: critical appraisal
RoB results within studies
  No 14 (13.6%)
  Partial yes (there are individual results without specification of specific criteria/domains) 17 (16.5%)
  Yes 72 (69.9%)
Description of protocol deviations
  No 18 (17.5%)
  Unclear 43 (41.7%)
  Yes 16 (15.5%)
  Does not apply 26 (25.2%)
Presence of spin bias
  No 82 (79.6%)
  Yes 21 (20.4%)
Discussion addressing RoB
  No 70 (68.0%)
  Yes 33 (32.0%)
Limitations thoroughly addressed
  No 6 (5.8%)
  Yes, BOTH for study and review levels 74 (71.9%)
  Yes, ONLY for the review level (limitation within or across studies not mentioned) 2 (1.9%)
  Yes, ONLY for the study and/or outcome level (review processes not mentioned) 21 (20.4%)
  1. ab Abstract, PICOS Acronym for population, intervention, comparator/control, outcome, setting, RoB Risk of bias