Skip to main content

Table 3 Reporting quality of items of the PRISMA for abstracts of meta-analyses of RCT

From: A comparison of quality of abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in high-impact general medicine journals before and after the publication of PRISMA extension for abstracts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Items

Criteria

2015

n = 61

2014

n = 59

2012

n = 84

Title

Identify the report as a meta-analysis

60 (98.4)

58 (98.3)

78 (92.9)

Objectives

The research question including components such as participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes

52 (85.2)

45 (76.3)

68 (81.0)

Eligibility criteria

Study and report characteristics used as criteria for inclusion

53 (86.9)

51 (86.4)

76 (90.5)

Information sources

Key databases searched and search dates

7 (11.5)

15 (25.4)

11 (13.3)

Risk of bias

Methods of assessing risk of bias

30 (49.2)

40 (67.8)

43 (51.2)

Included studies

Number and type of included studies and participants and relevant characteristics of studies

36 (59.0)

35 (59.3)

54 (64.3)

Synthesis of results

Results for main outcomes (benefits and harms), including summary measures and confidence intervals

61 (100)

42 (71.2)

57 (67.9)

Description of the effect

Direction of the effect and size of the effect in terms meaningful to clinicians and patients

46 (75.4)

34 (57.6)

51 (60.7)

Strengths and Limitations of evidence

Brief summary of strengths and limitations of evidence

12 (19.7)

18 (30.5)

33 (39.3)

Interpretation

General interpretation of the results and important implications

61 (100)

51 (86.4)

69 (82.1)

Funding

Primary source of funding for the review

24 (39.3)

12 (20.3)

24 (28.6)

Registration

Registration number and registry name

14 (23.0)

3 (5.1)

2 (2.4)