| 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 • Publication bias • Protocols • Heterogeneity • Risk of bias • Disclosure • Single reviewer |
| 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 • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Brazil |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 2 |
| Aim | To critically appraise and assess methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) of systematic reviews indexed on MEDLINE (via Pubmed) in December 2022 of pharmacological interventions for vesiculobullous skin diseases. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 9 included systematic reviews indexed on MEDLINE (via Pubmed) in December 2022 of pharmacological interventions for vesiculobullous skin diseases. 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 9 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 229 |