| 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 • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Cyprus |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 2 |
| Aim | To appraise the methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) of Systematic Reviews (SRs), with and without Meta-Analyses, that synthesised the findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the effectiveness of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation rTMS for the management of dysphagia post-stroke. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 19 systematic reviews identified from several databases from inception to the 14th of May 2023. 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 19 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 183 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |