- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
- The confidence in the results of physiotherapy systematic reviews in the musculoskeletal field is not increasing over time: a meta-epidemiological study using AMSTAR 2 tool
| Ref ID | 1014 |
| First Author | N. Ferri |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2024 |
| URL | https://www-sciencedirect-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0895435624000581?via%3Dihub |
| Keywords |
Physiotherapy Musculoskeletal Low methodological quality |
| Problem(s) |
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria Insufficient literature searches |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 100 |
| Summary of Findings | The confidence in the 100 random sample of inlcluded SRs results was critically low in 90% of the studies, and it did not increase over time. Cochrane reviews are predominantly represented in the higher AMSTAR 2 confidence levels.The AMSTAR 2 assessments showed that 93% of the studies did not explain the reason for the eligibility criteria of study designs, 78% did not report the list of the excluded studies and 90% did not check the funding sources of the primary studies; less than 10% of the SRs had a comprehensive search strategy. |
| 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? |