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 Protocols
Pain
Statistical
Expertise
Publication bias
Heterogeneity
Risk of bias
Physiotherapy
Low reporting quality
Searching
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No