- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
- Appraisal methods and outcomes of AMSTAR 2 assessments in overviews of systematic reviews of interventions in the cardiovascular field: A methodological study
Ref ID | 1026 |
First Author | P. Karakasis |
Journal | RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS |
Year Of Publishing | 2024 |
URL | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1680 |
Keywords |
Cardiology Overviews/Umbrella Reviews |
Problem(s) |
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews |
Number of systematic reviews included | 34 |
Summary of Findings | More than half (53% (360/679)) of the systematic reviews (SRs) of interventions included in cardiovascular overviews are of “Critically low” confidence according to AMSTAR 2. Heterogeneity is observed in the rating algorithms used by overviews' authors to derive the overall confidence in SRs in the cardiovascular field. Rating of the overall confidence presented in four categories and derived based on the seven critical and nine non- critical items was noted in 74% (25/34), whereas in 9% (3/34) of overviews ratings were derived based on overall score. About half authors did not provide an explicit statement of the rating method but tersely reported that SRs' assessment would be conducted with the AMSTAR 2 tool. Furthermore, only a minority of authors described their own algorithm for rating overall confidence (18%; 6/34). The following characteristics of SRs were significantly associated with higher overall ratings: Cochrane origin, pharmacological interventions, including exclusively RCTs, citation of methodological and reporting guidelines, protocol, absence of funding and publication after AMSTAR 2 release. |
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? |