- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
- Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool
| Ref ID | 111 |
| First Author | R. S. Ho |
| Journal | NPJ PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY MEDICINE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2015 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25569783/ |
| Keywords |
Transparency Publication bias Risk of bias Language Pulmonology Low methodological quality |
| Problem(s) |
Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Language restriction Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects Poor consideration of publication bias Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 79 |
| Summary of Findings | Only 18% of the 79 included systematic reviews considered the scientific quality of primary studies when formulating conclusions and 49% used appropriate meta-analytic methods to combine findings. The problems were particularly acute among MAs on pharmacological treatments. In 48% of systematic reviews the authors did not report conflict of interest. Fifty-eight percent reported harmful effects of treatment. Publication bias was not assessed in 65% of systematic reviews, and only 10% had searched non-English databases. |
| 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 |