MOOSE (Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) Checklist

A reporting checklist for Authors, Editors, and Reviewers of Meta-analyses of Observational Studies. You must report the page
number in your manuscript where you consider each of the items listed in this checklist. If you have not included this information,
either revise your manuscript accordingly before submitting or note N/A.

Reporting Criteria Reported (Yes/No) Reported on Page No.

Reporting of Background
Problem definition Yes 2
Hypothesis statement Yes 2
Description of Study Outcome(s) Yes 6
Type of exposure or intervention used Yes 4
Type of study design used Yes 5
Study population Yes 5
Reporting of Search Strategy
Qualifications of searchers (eg, librarians
Yes 6
and investigators)
Search strategy, including time period
Yes Supp. Table 2
included in the synthesis and keywords
Effort to include all available studies,
including contact with authors Yes Supplementary table 4
Databases and registries searched Yes 5
Search software used, name and
version, including special features used Yes 6
(eg, explosion)
Use of hand searching (eg, reference
Yes 5
lists of obtained articles)
List of citations located and those
Yes Supp. Figure 1
excluded, including justification
Method for addressing articles
published in languages other than Yes 5
English
Method of handling abstracts and
Yes 5
unpublished studies
Description of any contact with authors Yes 5
Reporting of Methods
Description of relevance or
appropriateness of studies assembled for Yes 6
assessing the hypothesis to be tested
Rationale for the selection and coding of
data (eg, sound clinical principles or Yes 6
convenience)
Documentation of how data were
classified and coded (eg, multiple raters, Yes 6
blinding, and interrater reliability)
Assessment of confounding (eg,
comparability of cases and controls in No N/A
studies where appropriate
 Reporting Criteria Reported (Yes/No) Reported on Page No.
Assessment of study quality, including
blinding of quality assessors;
Yes 7
stratification or regression on possible
predictors of study results
Assessment of heterogeneity Yes 8
Description of statistical methods (eg,
complete description of fixed or random
effects models, justification of whether
the chosen models account for predictors Yes 7-8
of study results, dose-response models,
or cumulative meta-analysis) in sufficient
detail to be replicated
Provision of appropriate tables and
graphics Yes Supp. File 1, Fig. 3-4 and Supp. File 2
Reporting of Results
Table giving descriptive information for
Yes Supp.Table 4
each study included
Results of sensitivity testing (eg,
Yes Supp. Fig. 3-6
subgroup analysis)
Indication of statistical uncertainty of
Yes 8-10
findings
Reporting of Discussion
Quantitative assessment of bias (eg,
Yes Supp. Table 5
publication bias)
Justification for exclusion (eg, exclusion
of non–English-language citations) Yes Supp. Figure 1
Assessment of quality of included studies Yes Supp. Table 5
Reporting of Conclusions
Consideration of alternative explanations
Yes 11-14
for observed results
Generalization of the conclusions (ie,
appropriate for the data presented and Yes 15
within the domain of the literature review)
Guidelines for future research Yes 14-15
Disclosure of funding source Yes 15

Once you have completed this checklist, please save a copy and upload it as part of your submission. DO NOT include this
checklist as part of the main manuscript document. It must be uploaded as a separate file.