- Framework of problems / Rigorous
- Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
- 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 • Low methodological quality • Musculoskeletal |
| 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 | From 100 included SRs identified through MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and PEDro from December 2012 to December 2022. The confidence in the 100 random sample of included 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? | N/A |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? |