- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects
- 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 |
• Risk of bias • Language • Publication bias • Pulmonology • Transparency • 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? | N/A |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | No |