| Ref ID | 113 |
| First Author | S. Dosenovic |
| Journal | BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2018 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29739339 |
| Keywords |
• Pain • Neurology • Non-Cochrane reviews • Publication bias • Protocols • Cochrane |
| Problem(s) |
• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews • Poor consideration of publication bias • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review • No registered or published protocol |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Croatia |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 1 |
| Aim | To assess the methodological quality (AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR) of systematic reviews in the field of neuropathic pain published across 5 databases from inception up to March 2015. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | The 97 included systematic reviews had a wide range of methodological quality scores (AMSTAR median (IQR): 6 (5–8) vs. R-AMSTAR median (IQR): 30 (26–35)). The 31 Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) were consistently ranked higher than the 66 non-Cochrane systematic reviews (NCSRs). Using AMSTAR the worst on items were: conflict of interest included, (12% fulfilled); ‘a priori’ design provided, (35% fulfilled) and likelihood of publication bias assessed (40% fulfilled). Using R-AMSTAR the worst adherence was found for likelihood of publication bias assessed (49% fulfilled), and scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions (44% fulfilled). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 97 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 2412 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |