Table 2 |
||||
|
Effectiveness reviews illustrating study selection in a flow diagram |
||||
|
All systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions: any flow diagram |
||||
|
|
||||
|
N reviews |
n flow diagrams (%) |
Citation to study relationship (% of all diagrams) |
Citation to study relationship: % of all reviews |
|
|
|
||||
|
2001 |
18 |
7 (38.9) |
2 (28.6) |
11.1 |
|
2002 |
22 |
8 (36.4) |
5 (62.5) |
22.7 |
|
2003 |
15 |
8 (53.3) |
3 (37.5) |
20.0 |
|
2004 |
19 |
13 (68.4) |
6 (46.2) |
31.6 |
|
2005 |
13 |
7 (53.8) |
4 (57.1) |
30.8 |
|
2001–05 |
87 |
43 (49.4) |
20 (46.5) |
23.0 |
|
|
||||
|
Systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis: any flow diagram |
||||
|
|
||||
|
N reviews |
n flow diagrams (%) |
|||
|
|
||||
|
2001 |
7 |
1 (14.3) |
||
|
2002 |
10 |
2 (20) |
||
|
2003 |
5 |
1 (20) |
||
|
2004 |
9 |
5 (55.6) |
||
|
2005 |
7 |
3 (42.9) |
||
|
2001–05 |
38 |
12 (31.6) |
||
|
|
||||
|
Hind and Booth BMC Medical Research Methodology 2007 7:49 doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-49 |
||||
