Gastrointestinal Bleeding in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Table 2

Risk of bias and applicability concerns of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Author	NICE quality assessment score-ITEMS								Total NICE score
	NICE 1: case series collected in more than one centre?	NICE 2: is the objective of the study clearly described?	NICE 3: are the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly reported?	NICE 4: is there a clear definition of the outcome reported?	NICE 5: were data collected prospectively?	NICE 6: is there an explicit statement that the patients were recruited consecutively?	NICE 7: are the main findings of the study clearly described?	NICE 8: Are outcomes stratified?
Blackett et al. [27]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	5
Martin et al. [9]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	5
Mattioli et al. [28]	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	6
Patell et al. [29]	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	6
Shao et al. [30]	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	4
Yang et al. [11]	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	4
Lin et al. [10]	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	4
Gonzalez Gonzalez et al. [32]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	5
Mauro et al. [15]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	6
Trindade et al. [31]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	5

The quality of selected studies was independently assessed by two investigators (GM and MM) using the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) quality assessment scale (1). Higher-quality studies were defined by a total score ≥4 and “lower-quality studies” by a total score <4. Discrepancies between reviewers concerning qualitative assessment were infrequent (overall interobserver variation <10%).