An analysis of quality of systematic reviews on pharmacist health interventions

Ref ID	271
First Author	A. C. Melchiors
Journal	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY
Year Of Publishing	2012
URL	https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11096-011-9592-0.pdf
Keywords	• Pharmacological • Searching • Low reporting quality • Reproducibility • Risk of bias • Single reviewer
Problem(s)	• Ignores setting or context of included studies which limits review applicability • No quality assessment undertaken or reported • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently • Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Insufficient literature searches • Methods not described to enable replication • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Number of systematic reviews included	31
Summary of Findings	Fifteen of the 31 included systematic reviews did not report the care setting of interventions of the primary studies, while 6 of the reviews did not define the target population in the methods. For methodological quality, 7 reached a high score (AMSTAR 9–11), 18 had moderate quality (AMSTAR 5–8) and 6 had poor quality (AMSTAR 0–4). It was observed that the high quality articles were published between 2007 and 2009.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	No