- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
- The Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines Focused on the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Cross-Sectional Analysis
Ref ID | 1030 |
First Author | M. Khalid |
Journal | JMIR DERMATOLOGY |
Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
URL | https://derma.jmir.org/2023/1/e43821 |
Keywords |
Cochrane Dermatology Non-Cochrane reviews Low methodological quality |
Problem(s) |
Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality |
Number of systematic reviews included | 50 |
Summary of Findings | The majority of SRs (19/50, 53%) were of critically low methodological quality assessed using AMSTAR 2, with no SRs being appraised as high quality. There was a statistically significant association (P<.001) between AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. Of the total 50 SRs, 4 (8%) were Cochrane reviews. Cochrane SRs had a mean PRISMA completion of 84.7% (SD 2.1%) compared to 64.9% (SD 11.5%) among non-Cochrane studies. Cochrane SRs also had a higher mean AMSTAR completion (mean 86.8%, SD 4.9%) compared to non-Cochrane SRs (mean 40.0%, SD 15.1%). |
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? |