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