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	• 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
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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes