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
Mental health
Publication bias
Risk of bias
Low reporting quality
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No