Reliability of the Evidence Addressing Treatment of Corneal Diseases: A Summary of Systematic Reviews

Ref ID 100
First Author I. J. Saldanha
Journal JAMA OPHTHALMOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2019
URL https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/articlepdf/2732698/jamaophthalmology_saldanha_2019_oi_190021.pdf
Keywords • Ophthalmology
• Cochrane
• Risk of bias
• Searching
• Error
Problem(s) • Insufficient literature searches
• Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis
• Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
Number of systematic reviews included 98
Summary of Findings Thirty-three of the included 98 systematic reviews (34%) were classified as unreliable. The most frequent reasons for unreliability were that the systematic review did not conduct a comprehensive literature search for studies (22 of 33 [67%]), did not assess risk of bias of the individual included studies (13 of 33 [39%]), and did not use appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (12 of 17 systematic reviews that conducted a quantitative synthesis [71%]).
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No