Methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination

Ref ID	239
First Author	C. Remschmidt
Journal	VACCINE
Year Of Publishing	2014
URL	https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24513008/
Keywords	• Vaccination • Disclosure • Transparency • Non-Cochrane reviews • Cochrane
Problem(s)	• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing
Number of systematic reviews included	46
Summary of Findings	From 11 Cochrane review and 35 non-Cochrane systematic reviews the median AMSTAR summary score was 8, but variability was large (range: 0–11). The weakest areas were the declaration of potential conflicts of interest. Cochrane reviews had higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews (p = 0.001). Detailed analysis showed that this was due to better study selection and data extraction, inclusion of unpublished studies, and better reporting of study characteristics (all p < 0.05). In the adjusted analysis, no other factor, including industry sponsorship or journal impact factor had an influence on AMSTAR score.
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?	Yes