- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
- 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 |