| Pneumonia |
|---|
| Chang, 201910 |
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria of the review included population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes of interest. The authors searched at least two databases and provided key words searched. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. The authors described the populations, interventions (including doses), comparators (including doses), outcomes and research designs of included studies. The authors assessed risk of bias for the included studies. The authors provided methodological details for the meta-analysis. The authors noted that most domains of the included studies were classified as low risk of bias. The authors provided results for the heterogeneity in the meta-analysis. The authors reported no conflicts of interests.
|
The review did not provide an explicit statement that the review methods/protocol were established prior to the conduct of the review. The authors did not explain their selection of study designs for inclusion in the review. A list of excluded studies was not provided. The authors did not report the sources of funding for the included studies. The authors did not investigate publication bias or possible impact on the results of the review.
|
| Zhang, 201811 |
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria of the review included population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes of interest The authors searched at least two databases and provided key search terms. References of selected studies were also searched Data extraction was performed in duplicate; however, authors did not state whether Study Selection was performed in duplicate. The authors described the populations, interventions (including dosing), comparators (including dosing), outcomes and research designs of included studies. The authors assessed risk of bias for the included studies. The authors noted that the low quality of included studies may impact the findings. The authors reported no conflicts of interests.
|
The review did not provide an explicit statement that the review methods/protocol were established prior to the conduct of the review. The authors did not explain their selection of study designs for inclusion in the review. A list of excluded studies was not provided. The authors did not report the sources of funding for the included studies. Only limited methodological details of the meta-analysis were included. The authors did not carry out an investigation of publication bias. The authors did not provide a discussion of heterogeneity in the results or discussion.
|
| Eljaaly, 201712 |
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria of the review included population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes of interest. The authors searched at least two databases and provided key their search strategy. Reference lists of the included studies and trial registries were also searched. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. The authors provided a list of excluded studies and justified the exclusions. The authors described the populations, interventions (including doses), comparators (including doses), outcomes and research designs of included studies. The authors assessed risk of bias for the included studies. The authors provided methodological details for the meta-analysis. The authors reported the sources of funding for the included studies. The authors noted that most domains of the included studies were classified as low risk of bias. The authors provided results for the heterogeneity in the meta-analysis. The authors carried out an investigation of publication bias. The authors reported no conflicts of interests.
|
The review did not provide an explicit statement that the review methods/protocol were established prior to the conduct of the review. The authors did not explain their selection of study designs for inclusion in the review.
|
| Lee, 201713 |
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria of the review included population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes of interest. The authors searched at least two databases and provided key their search strategy. Reference lists of relevant reviews were also searched. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. The authors described the populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes and research designs of included studies. The authors assessed risk of bias for the included studies. The authors provided methodological details for the meta-analysis. The authors reported no conflicts of interests.
|
The review did not provide an explicit statement that the review methods/protocol were established prior to the conduct of the review. The authors did not explain their selection of study designs for inclusion in the review. A list of excluded studies was not provided. The authors did not report the sources of funding for the included studies. The authors did not account for the risk of bias in the individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results. The authors noted heterogeneity but did not provide an explanation or discussion of the heterogeneity. The authors did not carry out an investigation of publication bias due to the low volume of RCTs.
|
| Vardakas, 2017a14 |
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria of the review included population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes of interest The authors searched at least two databases and provided key search terms. References of selected studies were also searched. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. The authors described the populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes and research designs of included studies. The authors provided methodological details for the meta-analysis. The authors provided results for the heterogeneity in the meta-analysis. The authors carried out an investigation of publication bias. The authors reported no conflicts of interests.
|
The review did not provide an explicit statement that the review methods/protocol were established prior to the conduct of the review. The authors did not explain their selection of study designs for inclusion in the review. A list of excluded studies was not provided. The authors did not assess risk of bias for the included studies. The authors did not report the sources of funding for the included studies.
|
| Vardakas, 2017b15 |
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria of the review included population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes of interest The authors searched at least two databases and provided key search terms. References of selected studies were also searched. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. The authors described the populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes and research designs of included studies. The authors assessed risk of bias for the included studies. The authors provided methodological details for the meta-analysis. The authors provided results for the heterogeneity in the meta-analysis. The authors carried out an investigation of publication bias. The authors reported no conflicts of interests or described their funding sources and conflicts of interest.
|
The review did not provide an explicit statement that the review methods/protocol were established prior to the conduct of the review. The authors did not explain their selection of study designs for inclusion in the review. A list of excluded studies was not provided. The authors did not report the sources of funding for the included studies.
|
| Raz-Pasteur, 201517 |
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria of the review included population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes of interest. The authors searched at least two databases and provided key words searched. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. The authors described the populations, interventions (including doses), comparators (including doses), outcomes and research designs of included studies. The authors assessed risk of bias for the included studies. The authors provided methodological details for the meta-analysis. The authors provided results for the heterogeneity in the meta-analysis. The authors reported no conflicts of interests.
|
The review did not provide an explicit statement that the review methods/protocol were established prior to the conduct of the review. The authors did not explain their selection of study designs for inclusion in the review. A list of excluded studies was not provided. The authors did not report the sources of funding for the included studies. The authors did not account for the risk of bias in the individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results. The authors did not carry out an investigation of publication bias.
|
| Pakhale, 201418 |
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria of the review included population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes of interest. The review contains information on the study protocol and explained deviations from the protocol. The authors used a comprehensive literature search strategy. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. The authors provided a list of excluded studies and justified the exclusions. The authors described the populations, interventions (including doses), comparators (including doses), outcomes and research designs of included studies. The authors assessed risk of bias for the included studies and accounted for risk of bias when interpreting/discussing the results of the review. The authors reported the sources of funding for the included studies. The authors reported any potential sources of conflict of interest.
| |
| Sligl, 201419 |
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria of the review included population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes of interest. The authors state that they had a written protocol for a search strategy that was established prior to the conduct of the review. The authors searched at least two databases and provided key their search strategy. Trial/Study registries and conferences were hand searched; the authors consulted content experts in the field. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. The authors described the populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes and research designs of included studies. The authors assessed risk of bias for the included studies. The authors provided methodological details for the meta-analysis. The authors provided results for the heterogeneity in the meta-analysis. The authors carried out an investigation of publication bias. The authors reported no conflicts of interests.
|
The authors did not explain their selection of study designs for inclusion in the review. A list of excluded studies was not provided. The authors did not report the sources of funding for the included studies. The authors did not account for the risk of bias in the individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results.
|
| COPD |
|---|
| Zhang, 201716 |
|---|
The research question and inclusion criteria of the review included the population, intervention, comparator group, and outcome. Study selection was performed in duplicate; however, authors did not state whether data extraction was performed I duplicate. Included studies were described in adequate detail. The authors assessed risk of bias for the included studies. There was no significant heterogeneity in the results.
|
The authors did not explicitly state that the review methods/protocol were established prior to conducting the review, however the research questions, search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and risk of bias assessment were discussed in detail. The authors did not provide a list of excluded studies and justification for the exclusions. The authors did not report the sources of funding for the included studies. The authors did not report sources of conflict of interest.
|
