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