Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for depression: a cross-sectional study

Ref ID 107
First Author V. C. H. Chung
Journal EPIDEMIOLOGY & PSYCHIATRIC SCIENCE
Year Of Publishing 2018
URL https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/912095F61FBE83211D632B24C5B559AA/S2045796017000208a.pdf/div-class-title-methodological-quality-of-systematic-reviews-on-treatments-for-depression-a-cross-sectional-study-div.pdf
Keywords • Protocols
• Publication bias
• Low reporting quality
• Risk of bias
• Mental health
Problem(s) • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
• Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
• Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing
• Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
• Poor consideration of publication bias
• No registered or published protocol
Number of systematic reviews included 358
Summary of Findings From 358 included systematic reviews of treatments for depression only 112 (31.3%) took the risk of bias among primary studies into account when formulating conclusions; 245 (68.4%) did not fully declare conflict of interests; 93 (26.0%) reported an ‘a priori’ design and 104 (29.1%) provided lists of both included and excluded studies. Results from regression analyses showed: more recent publications were more likely to report ‘a priori’ designs [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09–1.57], to describe study characteristics fully (AOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06–1.28), and to assess presence of publication bias (AOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.19), but were less likely to list both included and excluded studies (AOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81–0.92). SRs published in journals with higher impact factor (AOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04–1.25), completed by more review authors (AOR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01–1.24) and SRs on non-pharmacological treatments (AOR 1.62, 95% CI 1.01–2.59) were associated with better performance in publication bias assessment.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No