- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Low reporting or methodological quality (OTHER GUIDANCE)
- Need for quality improvement in renal systematic reviews
|CLINICAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY
|Year Of Publishing
Risk of bias
Low reporting quality
Low reporting or methodological quality (OTHER GUIDANCE)
Single reviewer / lack of double checking
Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria
No quality assessment undertaken or reported
Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
|Number of systematic reviews included
|Summary of Findings
|Of the 90 included renal systematic reviews published across several databases in 2005, the average OQAQ score was 6 (out of 9). Major methodologic flaws included (44/90; 40%) failure to assess the methodologic quality included studies. 51 of 90 (57%) reviews failed to show evidence that they attempted to minimize their bias during the process of selection of studies for analysis by having only one person select eligible studies, or they lacked a priori criteria for inclusion. Factors that were independently associated with higher methodologic quality were a lack of language restriction in the literature search, an attempt to contact primary study authors, and an explicit statement regarding sources of funding.
|Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?