- Framework of problems / Rigorous
- Flawed risk of bias undertaken
- Journal impact factor is associated with PRISMA endorsement, but not with the methodological quality of low back pain systematic reviews: a methodological review
| Ref ID | 280 |
| First Author | D. P. Nascimento |
| Journal | EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL |
| Year Of Publishing | 2020 |
| URL | https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00586-019-06206-8.pdf |
| Keywords |
• Pain • Physiotherapy • Publication bias • Expertise • Statistical • Protocols • Heterogeneity • Low reporting quality • Searching • Risk of bias |
| Problem(s) |
• Insufficient literature searches • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently • Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity • Poor consideration of publication bias • Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data • Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias • No registered or published protocol • Flawed risk of bias undertaken • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Following guidelines is no guarantee of a rigorous systematic review |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 66 |
| Summary of Findings | The methodological quality of 75.8% systematic reviews was critically low. Journals with higher impact factor were associated with journals endorsing the PRISMA recommendations but were not associated with the reviews’ methodological quality using AMSTAR 2. |
| 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 |