Quality assessment of the methods used in published opioid conversion reviews

Ref ID 244
First Author S. Saokaew
Journal JOURNAL OF PAIN & PALLIATIVE CARE PHARMACOTHERAPY
Year Of Publishing 2012
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23216173/
Keywords Transparency
Pharmacological
Pain
Risk of bias
Low reporting quality
Single reviewer
Problem(s) Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Single reviewer / lack of double checking
Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently
No quality assessment undertaken or reported
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing
Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
Number of systematic reviews included 5
Summary of Findings Of the five included opioid conversion systematic reviews published across several databases up to April 2012, no review mentioned about the duplicate study selection and data extraction. Two reviews included a list of studies that were excluded studies. One study did not provide information on the characteristics of primary studies that were included. Of the three reviews that evaluated the quality of primary studies, two used the quality of included studies in formulating conclusions. Only two reviews provided information about conflicts of interest. Of the five included systematic reviews, three reached a moderate score; two had poor AMSTAR quality.
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? No