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 Cochrane
Error
Risk of bias
Ophthalmology
Searching
Problem(s) Insufficient literature searches
Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No