| Ref ID | 171 |
| First Author | C. R. Macedo |
| Journal | CLINICS |
| Year Of Publishing | 2013 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3634971/pdf/cln-68-04-563.pdf |
| Keywords |
• Error • Publication bias • Low reporting quality • Risk of bias • Reproductive health • Gynaecology • Single reviewer |
| Problem(s) |
• Poor consideration of publication bias • No quality assessment undertaken or reported • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis • Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Brazil |
| Aim | To assess the methodological quality (AMSTAR) of systematic reviews of women's health published in electronic issues of the Sa˜o Paulo Medical Journal (Brazilian Journal of Evidence-based Health) published between 2008 and 2012 and available through the SciELO database. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | None of the five included reviews considered or mentioned the quality of included trials at formulating their conclusions nor did they assess publication bias. Only two systematic reviews (40%) provided a list of included/excluded studies and clearly stated that duplicate study selection and data extraction had been performed. Only two systematic reviews (40%) assessed the quality of included trials. Finally, only two systematic reviews (40%) used an appropriate method to combine studies. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 5 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 196 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |