- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
- The effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation for dysphagia in stroke patients: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
| Ref ID | 1016 |
| First Author | A.M. Georgiou |
| Journal | FRONTIERS IN HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2024 |
| URL | https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2024.1355407/full |
| Keywords |
Harms Diagnostic Neurology Low methodological quality |
| Problem(s) |
Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed No registered or published protocol Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 19 |
| Summary of Findings | The 19 included SRs did not consistently present the characteristics of the included trials, indicating discrepancies in their coverage and analysis. It was not possible to evaluate safety related to rTMS, as reports of side effects in many of the included reviews were incomplete or missing. The 19 studies were assessed using AMSTAR 2 and showed that two studies received low quality ratings, while the remaining 17 were rated with critically low quality. The items which were least well reported were a statement of protocol availability (78.9%), an explanation of selection for study designs for inclusion (94.75), a list of excluded studies with reasons (94.75); none of the reviews reported on the sources of funding for the included studies. Furthermore, nine SRs did not incorporate mean scores and standard deviations for both the rTMS and control groups in their meta-analyses. Notably, different means, standard deviations, and sample sizes, were reported across the various MAs for the same primary study in many cases. |
| 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? |