MOOSE (Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology)

Checklist
Integrantes:
● Isabella Sanclemente
● Andres Felipe Patiño
● Estefania Zapata
● Paula Estefanía Rodríguez
● Jahir Soto
● Miguel Maldonado
● Camila Rangel
● Julian López

Reporting Criteria Reported (Yes/No) Reported on Page No.

Reporting of Background
1. Problem definition Yes P1, C2, p3-4
2. Hypothesis statement Yes P2, C1, p2
L1-6,
3. Description of Study Outcome(s) Yes P1C1p4
P2,C2p1L7-14
4. Type of exposure or intervention used Yes P2,C2p2L9-12
5. Type of study design used Yes P2,C1p2, L3-4
6. Study population Yes P1,C1p5, L2-4
P2,C2p2, L3-6

Reporting of Search Strategy

7. Qualifications of searchers (eg, librarians Afiliaciones P10 C2 p3
Yes
and investigators)
8. Search strategy, including time period P2,C2p1
Yes Apendice 1
included in the synthesis and keywords
9. Effort to include all available studies,
Yes P2,C2p1L19-22
including contact with authors
10. Databases and registries searched Yes P2,C2p1L1-4
11. Search software used, name and N/A
version, including special features used NA
(eg, explosion)
12. Use of hand searching (eg, reference P4,C1p2 tab 1
Yes P2,C2p1L 19-21
lists of obtained articles)
13. List of citations located and those Supplementary: Tabla 1
Yes P4,C2p2
excluded, including justification
14. Method for addressing articles No esta explicito (en
published in languages other than No P2C1P1-Tienen no restricción
English del lenguaje, pero nada más)

15. Method of handling abstracts and

No
unpublished studies
16. Description of any contact with authors No Dice que si era
necesario, se
contactaban con
los autores,
pero no dicen si
lo hicieron
Reporting of Methods
17. Description of relevance or Yes P2,C2p2
appropriateness of studies assembled for
assessing the hypothesis to be tested
18. Rationale for the selection and
coding of data (eg, sound clinical NA No usaron datos a conveniencia
principles or
convenience)
19. Documentation of how data were Yes P2C2P3
classified and coded (eg, multiple raters, P3C2p1
blinding, and interrater reliability)
20. Assessment of confounding (eg, Yes P3C1p1L7-10
comparability of cases and controls in
studies where appropriate
Reporting Criteria Reported (Yes/No) Reported on Page No.
21. Assessment of study quality,
including blinding of quality assessors;
Yes P3,C1p1, L11-13
stratification or regression on possible
predictors of study results
22.Assessment of heterogeneity Yes P3,C2p2
P4C2P3L7-12
P5,C1-2,p1
P6,C1p1
Fig 3
23. Description of statistical methods (eg,
complete description of fixed or random
effects models, justification of whether
the chosen models account for predictors Yes P3C2p3
of study results, dose-response models,
or cumulative meta-analysis) in sufficient
detail to be replicated
24. Provision of appropriate tables and
Yes Tab 1 fig 1 fig 2 fig 3
graphics
Reporting of Results
25. Table giving descriptive information for tab 1
Yes
each study included
26. Results of sensitivity testing (eg, P6C2p2
Yes
subgroup analysis)
27.Indication of statistical uncertainty of
findings No

Reporting of Discussion
28. Quantitative assessment of bias (eg, P6C2p2L25-28
Yes
publication bias) P7C1p1
29. Justification for exclusion (eg, exclusion P2C2p2 L12-17
of non–English-language citations) Yes P4C2p2L3-10

30. Assessment of quality of included studies Yes Tabla 2 y 3

New Casttle
Ottawa
Reporting of Conclusions
31. Consideration of alternative explanations P8C1p1
Yes
for observed results P9C2p2L1-4
32. Generalization of the conclusions
(ie, appropriate for the data presented Yes P10C2p2
and
within the domain of the literature review)
33. Guidelines for future research Yes P10,C2p2L9-11
34. Disclosure of funding source Yes P11C1p2