Table 2 Quality assessment of the reviews conducted single-blind vs. double-blind; the proportions of quality ratings 4 and 5 and 95%CI 95 s
Single-blind (n 104) | Double-blind (n 116) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
1. Did the reviewer discuss the importance of the research question/topic of the review? | 53% 46–60 | 62% 56–68 | 0.07 |
2. Did the reviewer discuss the originality of the MS? | 26% 20–32 | 39% 33–45 | 0.003 |
3. Did the reviewer identify the strengths and weaknesses of the method/literature search? | 39% 33–46 | 44% 37–50 | 0.38 |
4. Did the reviewer make useful comments on writing, organisation, tables and figures? | 49% 42–56 | 55% 48–61 | 0.20 |
5. Were the reviewer’s comments constructive? | 62% 55–68 | 65% 59–71 | 0.44 |
6. Did the reviewer supply appropriate evidence using examples from the MS to substantiate their comments? | 51% 44–58 | 57% 50–63 | 0.18 |
7. Did the reviewer comment on the author’s interpretation of the results/literature? | 39% 32–46 | 46% 39–52 | 0.15 |
8. How would you rate the tone of the review? | 70% 64–76 | 69% 63–75 | 0.86 |
Overall proportions of all ratings 4 and 5 | 49% 46–51 | 55% 52–57 | < 0.001 |