Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage using AMSTAR and ROBIS checklists

Ref ID	303
First Author	A. Jaca
Journal	HUMAN VACCINES & IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS
Year Of Publishing	2019
URL	https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21645515.2019.1631567?needAccess=true
Keywords	• Vaccination • Low methodological quality
Problem(s)	• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • High risk of bias (ROBIS)
Number of systematic reviews included	57
Summary of Findings	Methodological quality using AMSTAR found 32%, 60% and 9% of the included systematic reviews to have high, moderate and low quality, respectively. Risk of bias using ROBIS found included reviews had 74%, 14% and 12% of low, unclear and high risk of bias. Principal component analysis showed that systematic reviews with low risk of bias in ROBIS correlated with systematic reviews having high-quality in AMSTAR, and systematic reviews with high risk of bias in ROBIS correlated with low-quality systematic reviews in AMSTAR.
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?	Yes