Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR

Ref ID 113
First Author S. Dosenovic
Journal BMC MED RES METHODOL
Year Of Publishing 2018
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29739339
Keywords Cochrane
Protocols
Pain
Publication bias
Neurology
Non-Cochrane reviews
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
Number of systematic reviews included 97
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).
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? Yes