Evaluating the quality of conduct of systematic reviews on the application of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for aphasia rehabilitation post-stroke

Ref ID 322
First Author A. M. Georgiou
Journal APHASIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2020
URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02687038.2019.1632786?needAccess=true
Keywords • Neurology
• Cognition
• Disclosure
• Low methodological quality
• Low reporting quality
• Protocols
Problem(s) • Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing
• Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
• No registered or published protocol
• Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria
• Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
• Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently
• Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Cyprus
Checklists • AMSTAR 2
Aim To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for recovery of language in stroke patients with aphasia.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings The overall confidence ratings of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for recovery of language in stroke patients with aphasia based on weaknesses in critical domains identified by the AMSTAR 2 was low for one systematic review and critically low for the remaining three.
Number of systematic reviews included 4
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 274
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description