Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Meta-Anal. Aug 28, 2020; 8(4): 309-319
Published online Aug 28, 2020. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v8.i4.309
Published online Aug 28, 2020. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v8.i4.309
Table 1 Articles considered in the analysis
Ref. | Country1 | No. of patients | Evaluated hematologic parameters |
Published studies | |||
Borges et al[11] | Multinational, predominantly China | 59254 | WBC, ANC, ALC, PLT, D-Dimer |
Cao et al[12] | China | 46959 | WBC, ALC |
Fu et al[13] | Not stated, likely all China | 3600 | WBC, ALC, PLT, D-dimer |
Henry et al[14] | China, Singapore | 2984 | WBC, ANC, ALC, MONO, EOS, HGB, PT, PTT, D-dimer |
Lagunes-Rangel[15] | China | 828 | Estimate of N/L ratio |
Li et al[16] | China | 1995 | WBC |
Lippi et al[17] | China, Singapore | 1099 | PLT |
Rodriguez-Morales et al[18] | China, Australia | 2874 | WBC, ALC, HGB |
Zhu et al[19] | China | 3062 | WBC, ALC, D-dimer |
Preprint studies | |||
Arabi et al[20] | China | 50 | WBC |
Ebrahami et al[21] | China | 2217 | WBC, ANC, ALC, HGB, PLT, PT, PTT, D-Dimer |
Han et al[22] | China | 1208 | ALC, ANC, PLT, PT, PTT, D-Dimer |
Heydari et al[23] | China, S. Korea | 49504 | WBC, ANC, ALC, D-dimer |
Ma et al[24] | China | 53000 | ALC, PLT, D-dimer |
Nasiri et al[25] | China, Germany | 4679 | WBC, ANC, ALC, HGB, PLT |
Pormohammad et al[26] | China | 52251 | WBC, ALC, ANC, PLT, HGB |
Xu et al[27] | China | 4062 | WBC, ANC,ALC, PLT, D-dimer |
Zhang et al[28] | Not stated, likely all China | 275 | WBC, ALC |
Table 2 Institutes of Medicine recommended standards for meta-analysis
Required element | Papers meeting this standard (total number and percentage) | Published/ accepted papers meeting this standard (total number and percentage) | Preprint papers meeting this standard (total number and percentage) |
Explain why a pooled estimate might be useful to decision makers | 9/19 (47%) | 5/9 (56%) | 4/10 (40%) |
Use expert methodologists to develop, execute, and peer review the meta-analyses | 15/19 (79%) | 7/9 (78%) | 8/10 (80%) |
Address heterogeneity among study effects | 18/19 (95%) | 8/9 (89%) | 10/10 (100%) |
Accompany all estimates with measures of statistical uncertainty | 19/19 (100%) | 9/9 (100%) | 10/10 (100%) |
Assess the sensitivity of conclusions to changes in the protocol, assumptions, and study selection (sensitivity analysis) | 12/19 (63%) | 5/9 (56%) | 7/10 (70%) |
Table 3 Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-analyses checklist
Item number | Element | Papers meeting this standard (total number and percentage) | Published/ accepted papers meeting this standard (total number and percentage) | Preprint papers meeting this standard (total number and percentage) |
1 | Title | 19/19 (100%) | 8/9 (89%) | 10/10 (100%) |
2 | Structured summary | 18/19 (95%) | 8/9 (89%) | 10/10 (100%) |
Introduction | ||||
3 | Rationale | 16/19 (84%) | 8/9 (80%) | 8/10 (89%) |
4 | Objectives | 17/19 (89%) | 9/9 (90%) | 8/10 (89%) |
Methods | ||||
5 | Protocol/Registration | 16/19 (84%) | 8/9 (89%) | 8/10 (78%) |
6 | Eligibility criteria | 17/19 (89%) | 8/9 (89%) | 9/10 (89%) |
7 | Information sources | 18/19 (95%) | 9/9 (100%) | 9/10 (89%) |
8 | Search | 18/19 (95%) | 9/9 (100%) | 9/10 (89%) |
9 | Study selection | 19/19 (100%) | 9/9 (100%) | 10/10 (100%) |
10 | Data collection process | 18/19 (95%) | 8/9 (89%) | 10/10 (100%) |
11 | Data items | 17/19 (89%) | 8/9 (89%) | 9/10 (89%) |
12 | Risk of bias in individual studies | 10/19 (53%) | 4/9 (44%) | 6/10 (56%) |
13 | Summary measures | 15/19 (79%) | 6/9 (66%) | 8/10 (78%) |
14 | Synthesis of results | 16/19 (84%) | 7/9 (78%) | 9/10 (89%) |
15 | Risk of bias across studies | 2/19 (11%) | 2/9 (22%) | 0/10 (0) |
16 | Additional analyses | 2/19 (11%) | 1/9 (11%) | 1/10 (10%) |
Results | ||||
17 | Study selection | 19/19 (100%) | 9/9 (100%) | 10/10 (100%) |
18 | Study characteristics | 19/19 (100%) | 9/9 (100%) | 10/10 (100%) |
19 | Risk of bias within studies | 12/19 (63%) | 5/9 (56%) | 7/10 (70%) |
20 | Results of individual studies | 11/19 (58%) | 5/9 (56%) | 6/10 (60%) |
21 | Synthesis of results | 16/19 (84%) | 8/9 (89%) | 8/10 (80%) |
22 | Risk of bias across studies | 9/19 (47%) | 5/9 (56%) | 4/10 (40%) |
23 | Additional analysis | 0/19 (0) | 0/9 (0) | 0/10 (0) |
Discussion | ||||
24 | Summary of evidence | 19/19 (100%) | 9/9 (100%) | 10/10 (100%) |
25 | Limitations | 16/19 (84%) | 7/9 (78%) | 9/10 (90%) |
26 | Conclusions | 19/19 (100%) | 9/9(100%) | 10/10 (100%) |
Funding | ||||
27 | Funding | 7/19 (37%) | 3/9 (33%) | 4/10 (40%) |
Table 4 Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology criteria checklist
Checklist | Number | Papers meeting this standard (total number and percentage) | Published/ accepted papers meeting this standard (total number and percentage) | Preprint papers meeting this standard (total number and percentage) |
I. Reporting of background | ||||
A. Problem definition | 10/19 (53%) | 7/9 (78%) | 3/10 (30%) | |
B. Hypothesis statement | 2/19 (11%) | 1/9 (11%) | 1/10 (10%) | |
C. Description of study outcome(s) | 19/19 (100%) | 10/9 (100%) | 9/10 (90%) | |
D. Type of exposure or intervention used | 18/19 (95%) | 9/9 (100%) | 8/10 (80%) | |
E. Type of study designs used | 18/19 (95%) | 9/9 (100%) | 9/10 (90%) | |
F. Study population | 18/19 (95%) | 9/9 (100%) | 9/10 (90%) | |
II. Reporting of search strategy | ||||
A. Qualifications of searchers | 0/19 (0) | 0/9 (0) | 0/10 (0) | |
B. Search strategy | 17/19 (89%) | 9/9 (100%) | 8/10 (80%) | |
C. Effort to include all available studies | 10/19 (53%) | 7/9 (78%) | 3/10 (30%) | |
D. Databases and registries searched | 17/19 (89%) | 7/9 (78%) | 10/10 (100%) | |
E. Search software used | 8/19 (42%) | 4/9 (44%) | 4/10 (40%) | |
F. Use of hand searching | 2/19 (11%) | 1/9 (11%) | 1/10 (10%) | |
G. List of citations located and those excluded | 10/19 (53%) | 5/9 (56%) | 5/10 (50%) | |
H. Method of addressing articles published in languages other than English | 0/19 (0) | 0/9 (0) | 0/10 (0) | |
I. Method of handling abstracts and unpublished studies | 0/19 (0) | 0/9 (0) | 0/10 (0) | |
J. Description of any contact with authors | 0/19 (0) | 0/9 (0) | 0/10 (0) | |
III. Reporting of methods | ||||
A. Description of relevance or appropriateness of studies assembled for assessing the hypothesis to be tested | 8/19 (42%) | 4/9 (44%) | 4/10 (40%) | |
B. Rationale for the selection and coding of data | 13/19 (68%) | 7/9 (78%) | 6/10 (60%) | |
C. Documentation of how data were classified and coded | 12/19 (63%) | 8/9 (89%) | 4/10 (40%) | |
D. Assessment of confounding | 1/19 (5%) | 0/9 (0) | 1/10 (10%) | |
E. Assessment of study quality | 16/19 (84%) | 7/9 (78%) | 9/10 (90%) | |
F. Assessment of heterogeneity | 18/19 (95%) | 8/9 (89%) | 10/10 (100%) | |
G. Description of statistical methods | 19/19 (100%) | 9/9 (100%) | 10/10 (100%) | |
H. Provision of appropriate tables and graphics | 18/19 (95%) | 9/9 (100%) | 9/10 (90%) | |
IV. Reporting of results | ||||
A. Graphic summarizing individual study estimates and overall estimate | 19/19 (100%) | 9/9 (100%) | 10/10 (100%) | |
B. Table giving descriptive information for each study included | 16/19 (84%) | 7/9 (78%) | 9/10 (90%) | |
C. Results of sensitivity testing (e.g, subgroup analysis) | 12/19 (63%) | 7/9 (78%) | 5/10 (50%) | |
D. Indication of statistical uncertainty of findings | 17/19 (89%) | 8/9 (89%) | 9/10 (90%) | |
E. Reporting of discussion should include | ||||
1. Quantitative assessment of bias (e.g, publication bias) | 11/19 (58%) | 4/9 (44%) | 7/10 (70%) | |
2. Justification for exclusion (eg, exclusion of non–English-language citations) | 3/19 (16%) | 1/9 (11%) | 2/10 (20%) | |
3. Assessment of quality of included studies | 12/19 (63%) | 4/9 (44%) | 8/10 (80%) | |
V. Reporting of conclusions | ||||
A. Consideration of alternative explanations for observed results | 1/19 (11%) | 0/9 (0) | 1/10 (10%) | |
B. Generalization of the conclusions (i.e, appropriate for the data presented and within the domain of the literature review) | 19/19 (100%) | 9/9 (100%) | 10/10 (100%) | |
C. Guidelines for future research | 8/19 (42%) | 6/9 (66%) | 2/10 (20%) |
- Citation: Frater JL. Importance of reporting quality: An assessment of the COVID-19 meta-analysis laboratory hematology literature. World J Meta-Anal 2020; 8(4): 309-319
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2308-3840/full/v8/i4/309.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13105/wjma.v8.i4.309