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 Protocols
Grey literature
Endocrinology
Low reporting quality
Low methodological quality
Single reviewer
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
Number of systematic reviews included 69
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
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No