| Ref ID | 1035 |
| First Author | P. Li |
| Journal | INTEGRATIVE CANCER THERAPIES |
| Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
| URL | https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15347354231188947?rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed&url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org |
| Keywords |
• Oncology • Complimentary & Alternative • Risk of bias • Low methodological quality • Low reporting quality • Certainty |
| Problem(s) |
• Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Low reporting (PRISMA) quality • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • High risk of bias (ROBIS) • Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | China |
| Checklists |
• PRISMA 2020 • AMSTAR 2 • ROBIS • GRADE |
| Aim | To assess the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) indexed across China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang database, Chinese biomedical literature service system (SinoMed), Chongqing VIP Database, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, OVID (including PsycInfo), Embase, PEDro, Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO from inception to September 2022, for CRF. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 30 included systematic reviews (SRs) indexed across China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang database, Chinese biomedical literature service system (SinoMed), Chongqing VIP Database, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, OVID (including PsycInfo), Embase, PEDro, Cochrane Library, and PROSPERO from inception to September 2022. Of the 30 included SRs 29 (96.6%) SRs were rated as “critically low” quality, and one was rated as “low” quality based on AMSTAR 2 assessments. None of the reviews provided a list of excluded studies with justifications; only 1 (3.3%) review reported report on the sources of funding for the included studies or assessed the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis. The ROBIS evaluations showed that 11 (36.6%) SRs demonstrated a high risk of bias. According to the PRISMA checklist, no SRs reported all the items, and only 10 (33.3%) SRs sufficiently reported over 70%. The authors conducted a GRADE assessment to qualify each outcome with the certainty of evidence. Based on the GRADE system there were 51 pooled results of cancer related fatigue, of which 2 were assessed as “high” quality, 21 as “moderate” quality, 18 as “low” quality, and 10 as “very low” quality. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 30 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 6415 |
| Treatment impacted | Not Applicable |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | No |
| Interpretation impacted description |