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.