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 Reproducibility
Pharmacological
Risk of bias
Low reporting quality
Searching
Single reviewer
Problem(s) 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
Ignores setting or context of included studies which limits review applicability
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No