The MOOSE guideline for writing a meta-analysis of observational studies.
About this guideline
This guideline is relevant to studies reporting meta-analyses of observational studies
Download Resources
Reporting guidelines are best used early:
- Use a template to write quickly and avoid the blank page
- Use a checklist to double-check and reassure others that your work is described transparently
Guidance
Approx. 1 min read
Title
1. Title
Identify the study as a meta-analysis of observational research
Abstract
2. Abstract
Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number (From PRISMA checklist)
Background
3a. Background
Problem definition
3b. Background
Hypothesis statement
3c. Background
Description of study outcomes
3d. Background
Type of exposure or intervention used
3e. Background
Type of study designs used
3f. Background
Study population
Methods
4a. Search strategy
Qualifications of searchers (eg, librarians and investigators)
4b. Search strategy
Search strategy, including time period included in the synthesis and keywords
4c. Search strategy
Effort to include all available studies, including contact with authors
4d. Search strategy
Databases and registries searched
4e. Search strategy
Search software used, name and version, including special features used (eg, explosion)
4f. Search strategy
Use of hand searching (eg, reference lists of obtained articles)
4g. Search strategy
List of citations located and those excluded, including justification
4h. Search strategy
Method of addressing articles published in languages other than English
4i. Search strategy
Method of handling abstracts and unpublished studies
4j. Search strategy
Description of any contact with authors
5a. Methods
Description of relevance or appropriateness of studies gathered for assessing the hypothesis to be tested
5b. Methods
Rationale for the selection and coding of data (eg, sound clinical principles or convenience)
5c. Methods
Documentation of how data were classified and coded (eg, multiple raters, blinding, and interrater reliability)
5d. Methods
Assessment of confounding (eg, comparability of cases and controls in studies where appropriate)
5e. Methods
Assessment of study quality, including blinding of quality assessors; stratification or regression on possible predictors of study results
5f. Methods
Assessment of heterogeneity
5g. Methods
Description of statistical methods (eg, 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
5h. Methods
Provision of appropriate tables and graphics
Results
6a. Results
Graphic summarizing individual study estimates and overall estimate
6b. Results
Table giving descriptive information for each study included
6c. Results
Results of sensitivity testing (eg, subgroup analysis)
6d. Results
Indication of statistical uncertainty of findings
Discussion
7a. Discussion
Quantitative assessment of bias (eg. publication bias)
7b. Discussion
Justification for exclusion (eg, exclusion of non–English-language citations)
7c. Discussion
Assessment of quality of included studies
Conclusion
8a. Conclusion
Consideration of alternative explanations for observed results
8b. Conclusion
Generalization of the conclusions (ie, appropriate for the data presented and within the domain of the literature review)
8c. Conclusion
Guidelines for future research
8d. Conclusion
Disclosure of funding source