|COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
|Year Of Publishing
Complimentary & Alternative
Risk of bias
Low reporting quality
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
|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?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?