| Ref ID | 1030 |
| First Author | M. Khalid |
| Journal | JMIR DERMATOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
| URL | https://derma.jmir.org/2023/1/e43821 |
| Keywords |
• Low methodological quality • Non-Cochrane reviews • Dermatology • Cochrane • Low reporting quality • Oncology |
| Problem(s) |
• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Low reporting (PRISMA) quality |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United States |
| Checklists |
• PRISMA 2009 • AMSTAR 2 |
| Aim | To appraise the methodological and reporting quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) indexed in PubMed between January 1, 2015, and May 21, 2021 and used in clinical practice guidelines for cutaneous melanoma and evaluate differences in these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | The majority of SRs indexed in PubMed between January 1, 2015, and May 21, 2021 and used in clinical practice guidelines for cutaneous melanoma (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%). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 50 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 4987 |
| Treatment impacted | Not Applicable |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |