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
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Brazil
Checklists • AMSTAR 2
Aim To assess the association of impact factor of the journals publishing low back pain systematic reviews published between 2015 and 2017 with PRISMA endorsement and additionally the reviews methodological quality (AMSTAR 2).
Level of Investigation Descriptive
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.
Number of systematic reviews included 66
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 7526