Reporting Criteria Reported Reported on Page

(Yes/No)
Reporting of Background
1 Problem definition Yes 2
Hypothesis statement Yes 2
Description of Study Outcome(s) Yes 2-3
Type of exposure or intervention used Yes 2-3
Type of study design used Yes 3
Study population Yes 2-3
Reporting of Search Strategy
Qualifications of searchers (eg, librarians Yes 3
and investigators)
Search strategy, including time period Yes 3
included in the synthesis and keywords
Effort to include all available studies, Yes 3-4
including contact with authors
Databases and registries searched Yes 3
Search software used, name and Yes 4
version, including special features used
(eg, explosion)
Use of hand searching (eg, reference Yes 3
lists of obtained articles)
List of citations located and those Yes 4
excluded, including justification
Method for addressing articles No Because there is no pu
published in languages other than language
English
Method of handling abstracts and Yes 4
unpublished studies
Description of any contact with authors Yes 4
Reporting of Methods
Description of relevance or Yes 4-5
appropriateness of studies assembled for
assessing the hypothesis to be tested
Rationale for the selection and coding of Yes 4
data (eg, sound clinical principles or
convenience)
Documentation of how data were Yes 4-5
classified and coded (eg, multiple raters,
blinding, and interrater reliability)
Assessment of confounding (eg, Yes 5
comparability of cases and controls in
studies where appropriate
Assessment of study quality, including Yes 5
blinding of quality assessors;
stratification or regression on possible
predictors of study results
Assessment of heterogeneity Yes 5
Description of statistical methods (eg, Yes 5-6
complete description of fixed or random
 effects models, justification of whether
the chosen models account for predictors
of study results, dose-response models,
or cumulative meta-analysis) in sufficient
detail to be replicated
Provision of appropriate tables and Yes Table 1and 2
graphics
Reporting of Results
Table giving descriptive information for Yes Figure 1-7
each study included
Results of sensitivity testing (eg, Yes Table 2
subgroup analysis)
Indication of statistical uncertainty of Yes Figure 3
findings
Reporting of Discussion
Quantitative assessment of bias (eg, yes
publication bias)
Justification for exclusion (eg, exclusion No
of non–English-language citations)
Assessment of quality of included studies Yes
Reporting of Conclusions
Consideration of alternative explanations yes
for observed results
Generalization of the conclusions (ie, yes
appropriate for the data presented and
within the domain of the literature review)
Guidelines for future research yes
Disclosure of funding source yes
MOOSE Statement - Reporting Checklist for Authors, Editors, and
Reviewers of Meta-analyses of Observational Studies