- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Poor consideration of publication bias
- 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 |