You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Table 1 The seven standardized criteria

From: Validity of observational evidence on putative risk and protective factors: appraisal of 3744 meta-analyses on 57 topics

Levels of evidence Description
Convincing • Associations with a statistical significance at P < 10−6
• More than 1000 cases included (or more than 20,000 participants for continuous outcomes)
• The largest component study reporting a significant result at P < 0.05
• A 95% prediction interval that excluded the null
• Absence of large heterogeneity (I2<50%)
• No evidence of small study effects (P > 0.10)
• No evidence of excess significance (P > 0.10)
Highly suggestive • Associations with a statistical significance at P < 10−6
• More than 1000 cases included (or more than 20,000 participants for continuous outcomes)
• The largest component study reporting a significant result at P < 0.05.
Suggestive • Associations with a statistical significance at P < 0.001
• More than 1000 cases included (or more than 20,000 participants for continuous outcomes).
Weak • Associations with a statistical significance at P < 0.05
  1. Previous umbrella reviews have used various criteria to assess the evidence from meta-analysis of observational epidemiological studies. The combination of these criteria allows to tentatively classify evidence from meta-analyses of statistically significant risks and protective factors into four levels described below. A more detailed description of the criteria can be found in Additional file 1: Appendix Method 1