| 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 |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Germany |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 1 |
| Aim | To assess the methodological quality (AMSTAR) of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination (efficacy, effectiveness, safety) and to identify influencing factors of AMSTAR score including being a Cochrane versus, non-Cochrane review, industry sponsorship and journal impact factor. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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 Detailed analysis showed that this was due to better study selection and data extraction, inclusion of unpublished studies, and better reporting of study characteristics (all p 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 46 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 564 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |