Table 3 Quality assessment of the reviews conducted single-blind vs. double-blind; means, 95%CIs and SDs
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? | 3.38 3.22–3.54 SD 1.17 | 3.53 3.37–3.69 SD 1.22 | 0.19 |
2. Did the reviewer discuss the originality of the MS? | 2.51 2.33–2.69 SD 1.34 | 2.90 2.72–3.07 SD 1.36 | 0.003 |
3. Did the reviewer identify the strengths and weaknesses of the method/literature search? | 2.90 2.71–3.08 SD 1.33 | 3.13 2.97–3.30 SD 1.25 | 0.06 |
4. Did the reviewer make useful comments on writing, organisation, tables and figures? | 3.31 3.16–3.46 SD 1.10 | 3.41 3.27–3.56 SD 1.10 | 0.31 |
5. Were the reviewer’s comments constructive? | 3.61 3.50–3.73 SD 0.86 | 3.69 3.59–3.79 SD 0.80 | 0.35 |
6. Did the reviewer supply appropriate evidence using examples from the MS to substantiate their comments? | 3.30 3.14–3.47 SD 1.22 | 3.43 3.28–3.58 SD 1.15 | 0.27 |
7. Did the reviewer comment on the author’s interpretation of the results/literature? | 3.00 2.83–3.16 SD 1.22 | 3.21 3.06–3.35 SD 1.10 | 0.06 |
8. How would you rate the tone of the review? | 3.79 3.70–3.89 SD 0.66 | 3.77 3.68–3.85 SD 0.65 | 0.69 |
Mean of assessments on all topics | 3.22 3.17–3.28 SD 1.20 | 3.38 3.33–3.44 SD 1.13 | < 0.001 |