| 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 |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Australia |
| Aim | To assess the assess the reliability according to (pre-specification of eligibility criteria; comprehensive searches; risk of bias assessment; appropriate data synthesis methods; and validity of conclusions for Cochrane reviews of interventions for corneal diseases, published from 1997 to 2017. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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%]). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 98 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 3777 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |