Skip to main content

Table 1 Study design according to SIGN classifying algorithm and SIGN quality of evidence scale

From: Social, economic, and health impact of the respiratory syncytial virus: a systematic search

Study design and quality of evidence N % References
Systematic review or Meta-analyses 21 23.6  
?High quality 8   [40],[42],[46],[61],[62],[65],[71],[72]
?Acceptable 13   [18],[19],[28],[33],[41],[43],[50],[64],[67],[73]-[76]
Economic evaluation 6 6.7  
?High quality 6   [55],[57]-[60],[63]
?Acceptable 0   
Controlled trial 4 4.5  
?High quality 4   [52],[77],[78],[106]
?Acceptable 0   
Cohort studies 18 20.2  
?High quality 11   [45],[69],[86],[87],[89],[90],[93]-[95],[97],[105]
?Acceptable 7   [44],[85],[88],[91],[100],[102],[103]
Case-control study 5 5.6  
?High quality 3   [47],[79],[92]
?Acceptable 2   [39],[99]
Cross-sectional study* 35 39.8 [20]-[27],[29]-[32],[34]-[38],[48],[49],[51],[53],[54],[56],[66],[68],[70],[80]-[84],[96],[98],[101],[104]
Total 89 100  
  1. *The scientific quality of cross-sectional studies was not evaluated because it is not required by the SIGN scale.