- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
- Methodological and reporting quality evaluation of systematic reviews on acupuncture in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome: A systematic review
| Ref ID | 106 |
| First Author | Y.-N. Luo |
| Journal | COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN CLINICAL PRACTICE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2018 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30396621/ |
| Keywords |
Protocols Transparency Complimentary & Alternative Risk of bias Pre-specification Disclosure Low reporting quality Searching Single reviewer |
| Problem(s) |
No registered or published protocol Insufficient literature searches Search strategy not provided Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Single reviewer / lack of double checking Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Flawed risk of bias undertaken Low reporting (PRISMA) quality Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 10 |
| Summary of Findings | Of the ten included systematic reviews, only two achieved a total rating of >50%) using AMSTAR 2. A small proportion of the reviews (20%) provided the protocol or registered information and explained selection inclusion of the study designs in the review. A comprehensive literature search was performed in one (10%) review, whereas others 9 (90%) did not provide a reason for each excluded study during full-text screening. Seven (70%) reviews performed study selection and data extraction in duplicate. Six (60%) reviews provided partial characteristics of study without the description of follow-up. Over 30% of reviews did not use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies included in the review. None of the included reviews reported the source of research funding for randomized trials included in the systematic reviews. Nine (90%) reviews applied appropriate methods for statistical synthesis. Four (40%) reviews assessed the potential impact of risk of bias in individual studies on the results of the synthesis and accounted for risk of bias in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review, respectively. The potential conflicts of interest were reported in two (20%) reviews. |
| 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? | Yes |