Systematic reviews supporting practice guideline recommendations lack protection against bias

Ref ID 333
First Author J. P. Brito
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2013
URL https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(13)00031-0/pdf
Keywords • Low reporting quality
• Grey literature
• Protocols
• Single reviewer
• Low methodological quality
• Endocrinology
Problem(s) • No registered or published protocol
• Grey literature excluded
• Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
• Single reviewer / lack of double checking
• Poor consideration of publication bias
• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country United States
Checklists • AMSTAR 1
Aim To assess the methodological quality (AMSTAR) of systematic reviews affecting clinical practice in endocrinology from those published in The Endocrine Society’s Clinical Practice Guidelines between 2006 and January 2012.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings Included reviews had a mean AMSTAR score of 6.4 (standard deviation, 2.5) from a maximum score of 11, with scores improving over time. Systematic reviews of randomized trials had higher AMSTAR scores than those of observational studies. Low-quality systematic reviews (methodological AMSTAR score 1 or 2 of 5, n 5 24, 35%) were cited in 24 different practice recommendations and were the main evidentiary support for five recommendations, of which only one acknowledged the quality of systematic reviews
Number of systematic reviews included 69
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 2817
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description