- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
- Quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of vesiculobullous skin diseases. A meta-epidemiological study
| Ref ID | 1052 |
| First Author | K.M.M. Sa |
| Journal | ANAIS BRASILEIROS DE DERMATOLOGIA |
| Year Of Publishing | 2024 |
| URL | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0365059623002386?via%3Dihub |
| Keywords |
Dermatology Low methodological quality |
| Problem(s) |
No registered or published protocol Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria Insufficient literature searches Single reviewer / lack of double checking Poor consideration of publication bias Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 9 |
| Summary of Findings | Of the 9 inlcuded reviews 55.6% (5/9) were classified as critically low quality, and one was low quality (11.1%). None of the reviews reported a review protocol registration, an explanation of the primary study design selection, a list of excluded studies with reasons, or funding sources of the included studies. Of these reviews, 40% (2/5) did not have a comprehensive search strategy; 60% (3/5) did not perform study selection and data extraction by two independent authors; and 40% (2/5) did not use a satisfactory technique for assessing the Risk of Bias (RoB) in individual RCTs. The only study in this classification that performed meta-analysis did not evaluate the impact of risk of bias of individual studies in the meta-analysis and did not perform publication bias investigation. Four of the five reviews (80%) did not account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review, and three (60%) did not report investigating heterogeneity. |
| 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? |