Skip to main content

Table 3 The summary of rating quality of evidence for two-dose varicella VEs

From: Two-dose varicella vaccine effectiveness in China: a meta-analysis and evidence quality assessment

 

Evidence Decrease

Evidence Increase

Quality

limitations

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Publication Bias

large Effect

Plausible Confounding

Dose-response Gradi

Pooled VE

seriousa

nob

no

no

seriousc

very larged

no

no

LOW

Outbreak

 Y

seriousa

no

no

no

no

larged

no

no

LOW

 N

seriousa

no

no

no

seriousc

very larged

no

no

LOW

NOS score

  ≥ 7

no

nob

no

no

seriousc

very larged

no

no

MODERATE

  < 7

seriousa

no

no

no

no

larged

no

no

LOW

  1. aThe results of NOS quality evaluation indicated that there was a high risk of bias
  2. bWe were sure the reason of the significant heterogeneity was a study had a large sample size and higher RR compared to the other studies
  3. cEgger’s regression test indicated an evidence of publication bias
  4. dWe rated quality of evidence up by one category for RR associations less than 0.2, and up by two categories for associations less than 0.1