- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Insufficient literature searches
- Methodological quality of systematic reviews on atopic dermatitis treatments: a cross-sectional study
| Ref ID | 1023 |
| First Author | L. Ho |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGICAL TREATMENT |
| Year Of Publishing | 2024 |
| URL | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546634.2024.2343072 |
| Keywords |
Dermatology Low methodological quality |
| Problem(s) |
Insufficient literature searches Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias No registered or published protocol |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 52 |
| Summary of Findings | Among the 52 appraised SRs, only one (1.9%) had high methodological quality, while 45 (86.5%) critically low. For critical domains, only five (9.6%) had a comprehensive search strategy, seven (13.5%) provided a list of excluded studies, 17 (32.7%) considered risk of bias in primary studies, 21 (40.4%) contained registered protocol, and 24 (46.2%) investigated publication bias. Nearly half (n = 24; 46.2%) of the included SRs did not report on funding sources.Cochrane reviews (p = 0.004), updates of previous SRs (p = 0.027), SRs with the corresponding author from Europe (p = 0.007), and SRs funded by institutions or organizations in Europe (p = 0.002) were associated with better overall methodological quality, compared to their counterparts. |
| 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? |