- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Low reporting or methodological quality (OTHER GUIDANCE)
- Peer Reviewed: Quality of Systematic Reviews of Observational Nontherapeutic Studies
|PREVENTING CHRONIC DISEASE
|Year Of Publishing
Risk of bias
Low reporting quality
Low methodological quality
Low reporting or methodological quality (OTHER GUIDANCE)
Grey literature excluded
No quality assessment undertaken or reported
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
|Number of systematic reviews included
|Summary of Findings
|Of the 145 included systematic reviews of observational studies of non-therapeutic interventions conducted between 2005-2008, fewer than half met each quality criterion; 49% reported study flow, 27% assessed grey literature, 2% abstracted sponsorship of individual studies, and none abstracted the disclosure of conflict of interest by the authors of individual studies. Planned, formal internal quality evaluation of included studies was reported in 37% of systematic reviews. The journal of publication, topic of review, sponsorship, and conflict of interest were not associated with better quality.
|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?