Skip to main content

Table 2 Knowledge synthesis method characteristics

From: Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review

 

Method characteristics (n = 438)a

Count (%)

A priori protocol and review design

A priori protocol

Use of a protocol mentioned

66 (15.1)

Published

40 (9.1)

Registered

25 (5.7)

Available upon request

6 (1.4)

Not reported

301 (68.7)

Research question

Clearly reported

437 (99.8)

Unclear/inferred

1 (0.2)

Eligibility criteria

Clearly reported

430 (98.2)

Unclear/inferred

1 (0.2)

Not reported

7 (1.6)

Identifying relevant studies

Databases searched

Searched more than one database

407 (92.9)

Searched only one database

29 (6.6)

Not reported

2 (0.5)

Search string

Complete literature search

207 (47.3)

MeSH terms only

173 (39.5)

Not reported

58 (13.2)

Additional search strategy

Scanned references

309 (70.5)

Grey literature searched

270 (61.6)

Consulted topic experts

80 (18.3)

Consulted librarian

67 (15.3)

Performed updated search

62 (14.2)

Manually searched selected journals

37 (8.4)

Limits applied

Limited by study design

291 (66.4)

Limited by language

147 (33.6)

Limited by date

135 (30.8)

Other limits (e.g., age, humans)

129 (29.5)

Study selection

Title & abstract screening

Two or more independent reviewers

285 (65.1)

One reviewer and one verifier

9 (2.1)

One reviewer only

16 (3.7)

Done but unclear number of reviewers

92 (21.0)

Not reported

36 (8.2)

Full-text screening

Two or more independent reviewers

282 (64.4)

One reviewer and one verifier

11 (2.5)

One reviewer only

7 (1.6)

Done but unclear number of reviewers

105 (24.0)

Not reported

33 (7.5)

Study flow

Completely in PRISMA-like flow diagram

374 (85.4)

Completely in text/table only

20 (4.6)

Partially reported

15 (3.4)

Not reported

29 (6.6)

Data abstraction & quality assessment

Data abstraction

Two or more independent reviewers

238 (54.3)

One reviewer and one verifier

94 (21.5)

One reviewer only

8 (1.8)

Done but unclear number of reviewers

75 (17.1)

Not reported

23 (5.3)

Quality appraisal

Two or more independent reviewers

181 (41.3)

One reviewer and one verifier

21 (4.8)

One reviewer only

9 (2.1)

Done but unclear number of reviewers

133 (30.4)

Not reported

94 (21.5)

  1. a18 out of 456 NMAs did not provide details of their knowledge synthesis method