- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
- 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 |
Cochrane Transparency Vaccination Disclosure Non-Cochrane reviews |
| 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 Detailed analysis showed that this was due to better study selection and data extraction, inclusion of unpublished studies, and better reporting of study characteristics (all p 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? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |