Quality assessment of systematic reviews of vitamin D, cognition and dementia

Ref ID 270
First Author F. Aghajafari
Journal BJPSYCH OPEN
Year Of Publishing 2018
URL https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/B30CA6924AECC363B37F4FDCBBCB44DF/S2056472418000327a.pdf/div-class-title-quality-assessment-of-systematic-reviews-of-vitamin-d-cognition-and-dementia-div.pdf
Keywords Publication bias
Risk of bias
Vitamins and supplements
Cognition
Problem(s) Poor consideration of publication bias
No quality assessment undertaken or reported
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Number of systematic reviews included 11
Summary of Findings Of the 11 included systematic reviews, seven were assessed as having moderate methodological quality and four had high methodological quality. The key characteristics that distinguished studies with high AMSTAR scores included assessment of quality of the studies and assessment of publication bias. With one exception, all included studies declared conflicts of interest for the review but not for the included studies.
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