| 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 |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Hong Kong |
| Aim | To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews of treatments for depression (AMSTAR) indexed across two databases up to 2017. The associations between bibliographical characteristics and scoring on AMSTAR items were analysed using logistic regression analysis. |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 358 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 1651 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |