Non-communicable diseases research output in the Eastern Mediterranean region: an overview of systematic reviews

Ref ID	419
First Author	A. Akkawi
Journal	BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Year Of Publishing	2020
URL	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7082905/pdf/12874_2020_Article_924.pdf
Keywords	• General medical • Grey literature • Protocols • Error • Publication bias • Low reporting quality • Searching • Low methodological quality • Disclosure • Risk of bias
Problem(s)	• No registered or published protocol • Insufficient literature searches • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Poor consideration of publication bias • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported • Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing • Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Grey literature excluded • No quality assessment undertaken or reported • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review • Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis
Number of systematic reviews included	89
Summary of Findings	83% of included reviews were of low AMSTAR quality and 1% was of high quality. Common flaws were: “a priori” design (13.5%); duplicate reviewer (21%); comprehensive literature search (20%); grey literature included (19%); list of excluded studies (3%); quality assessment (32%); quality incorporated into conclusions (21%); appropriate data synthesis (53%); publication bias assessed (16%); conflicts of interest assessed (0%).
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