Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies

Ref ID	151
First Author	B. Windsor
Journal	HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Year Of Publishing	2012
URL	https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/27/12/3460/653616?login=true
Keywords	• Gynaecology • Reproductive health • Cochrane • Protocols • Publication bias • Non-Cochrane reviews • Risk of bias • Transparency • Low methodological quality • Single reviewer • Disclosure
Problem(s)	• Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing • Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • No registered or published protocol • Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Poor consideration of publication bias • No quality assessment undertaken or reported • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
Number of systematic reviews included	60
Summary of Findings	30 Cochrane systematic reviews and 30 non-Cochrane systematic reviews of assisted reproductive technologies were included. 10/11 AMSTAR requirements were met in more than 50% of Cochrane reviews, but only 4 of 11 AMSTAR requirements were met in >50% of non-Cochrane reviews. However, remining deficits in Cochrane reviews include: only 67% performing duplicate study selection and data extraction, only 53% conducting assessment for publication bias and only 47% reporting of conflicts of interest. In non-Cochrane reviews the weakest areas were a priori study design (17%), duplicate study selection and data extraction (17%), assessment of study quality (27%), study quality in the formulation of conclusions (23%) and reporting of conflict of interests (10%).
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?	No