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)
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country South Africa
Checklists • AMSTAR 1
• ROBIS
Aim To assess the methodological quality (AMSTAR) and risk of bias (ROBIS) in systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage indexed up to June 2016.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
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.
Number of systematic reviews included 57
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 2322