Table 11Reporting of validity and generalizability information in systematic reviews by device categories

Reporting ItemVascular
N=124
Cardiac
N=19
Orthopedic
N=16
Neurostimulator
N=14
Skin Grafts
N=8
P-Value
Validity
Risk of bias was assessed56 (45)14 (74)6 (38)2 (14)5 (63)0.01
Publication bias was assessed*45 (45)12 (73)3 (43)0 (0)0 (0)0.001
Quality items or checklists were applied and reported42 (34)13 (68)9 (56)3 (21)5 (63)0.02
Discussion
Study limitations were described116 (94)18 (95)15 (94)12 (86)8 (100)0.89
Overall strength of the body of evidence was assessed13 (11)2 (11)10 (63)4 (29)4 (50)<0.001
Future research recommendations were made100 (81)14 (74)13 (81)13 (93)8 (100)0.66
Funding source was reported54 (44)12 (63)3 (19)5 (36)2 (25)0.04
Authors' affiliation to industry reported27 (22)5 (26)1 (6)4 (29)1 (13)0.33
*

Results were analyzed based on 124 reviews that conducted meta-analyses

From: Results

Cover of Quality of Reporting in Systematic Reviews of Implantable Medical Devices
Quality of Reporting in Systematic Reviews of Implantable Medical Devices [Internet].
Raman G, Gaylor JM, Rao M, et al.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.