- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
- Systematic reviews in burns care: poor quality and getting worse
| Ref ID | 253 |
| First Author | J. M. Campbell |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF BURN CARE & RESEARCH |
| Year Of Publishing | 2017 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28253213/ |
| Keywords |
Protocols Publication bias Risk of bias Dermatology |
| Problem(s) |
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality Poor consideration of publication bias No registered or published protocol No quality assessment undertaken or reported Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 44 |
| Summary of Findings | The overall quality of the 44 included burns care systematic reviews was low, with an average methodological quality of 55% and an average compliance with reporting guidelines of 70%. Correlation analysis showed that adherence to reporting guidelines has been relatively stable, but methodological quality has deteriorated (r = −.32, P < .05). Quality did not have a significant effect on citation rate. The likelihood of publication bias assessment and assessment of conflict of interest of included studies scored particularly poorly (25 and 14%). Additionally, only 66% of studies utilized an a priori protocol or performed critical appraisal. |
| 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 |