| Ref ID | 137 |
| First Author | J. Feldmann |
| Journal | BMJ OPEN |
| Year Of Publishing | 2019 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6701675/pdf/bmjopen-2018-024587.pdf |
| Keywords |
• General medical • Non-Cochrane reviews • Stakeholder • Cochrane |
| Problem(s) |
• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews • Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews • Lack of clinical expert/ stakeholder/ user perspective |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Switzerland |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 1 |
| Aim | To assess the characteristics and methodological quality (AMSTAR) of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews and the methodological quality of included studies published across four databases between January 2011 and October 2015. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | 30 Cochrane reviews and 30 non-Cochrane systematic reviews published between January 2011 and October 2015 were included. Rapid reviews were also included but are not discussed here. Stakeholder involvement was documented in 13% (4/30) of Cochrane reviews and 20% (6/30) of non-Cochrane reviews. Cochrane reviews had higher median AMSTAR scores (11, range 7-11) than non-Cochrane reviews (7, range 3-11). All 30 Cochrane systematic reviews (100%) mentioned a pre-existing review protocol, whereas only 59% of non-Cochrane systematic reviews clarified whether there was a protocol or not. Similarly, all 30 Cochrane systematic reviews included a conflict of interest statement, whereas 40% of non-Cochrane systematic reviews lacked such a paragraph. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 60 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 57822 |