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://watermark.silverchair.com/des342.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAArswggK3BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKoMIICpAIBADCCAp0GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMbY6i-59e6OShOXJPAgEQgIICbgefev0tp6IYNRifcV5Ot01C-Aw22dJaUV6_xWbaWyNZ1MozOOyfn04c7DD6re7LIhRjtuKc67UFQTiPmlgMxgox_LfEPZDYTllo66LUqX6-YK4PLu53bVGoPwbD9mJ2ykX79UtrXVftOO0QPMOv0Q7m8lsnT9qiwIO5TQOqs35BL7rov4mJmu294wJxNmV-JDjhSg5u7Kr5Md4VUa8V-6g_u6rdmYSmeSKytlxvTnaLQLt76IWZNxdwHPpO0XlFCvZ8KsfGDFwu3Uw704ByAIt7CzF-L8QFe1-Ikd-Zn0w7xf5b_1JQdw1fYr7o6cYKrI4qW6g2WYsiHcVUZnIqAMnURqMcjS-QITXSxuhU4Hej3xdupyZqoB7rI2skW_v0sSx_jATAktQpgQ3gEzRdLM3YpMw03b8aNg875IX_3_GydHKokn91oSw0ZjPQVKsdStqdkFh5yI1Sd61dmS-SWAccV55RT9TMaPdv-7zToyOctzD2ofZtPXLm66cX7gKZoUgyAQSi06z34tehQqLSBeAO-SIJpp9SCOy-N9SN4wClo7Oy8DUBDGMKYIPzkBjmI1ncDIOMVOl27ueUpKarf3Zi1d3HJAJDstg7doH7j420Zf9I-2m4qQmtpfHQ3g4NBSVsvMaOfzZYuBlw3xo4jaartSjc0SWqJ9O5Co14pYUp_ly42Oz0ZoJ9qBIXW8YPS7pn978kCeWRqB_HkzsviKfc9HBH3d6DgqpNSu6yJmr1Nhrj8eZnRPuErgjDhW8-W_Yg3mFgUcW0vOWEQ5dioI-siV6_gH7Jh1JrY5RaNo9jpygoo1SrbOzvYQ5KpZ8
Keywords Cochrane
Protocols
Transparency
Publication bias
Risk of bias
Disclosure
Gynaecology
Reproductive health
Non-Cochrane reviews
Low methodological quality
Single reviewer
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No