Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality

Ref ID 499
First Author K. Pussegoda
Year Of Publishing 2017
Keywords Protocols
Grey literature
External validity
Publication bias
Risk of bias
General medical
Low reporting quality
Low methodological quality
Single reviewer
Overviews/Umbrella Reviews
Problem(s) No registered or published protocol
Single reviewer / lack of double checking
No quality assessment undertaken or reported
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing
Lack of guidance or consistency in systematic overview / umbrella / review of systematic reviews
Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
Ignores setting or context of included studies which limits review applicability
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria
Grey literature excluded
Search strategy not provided
Insufficient literature searches
Poor consideration of publication bias
Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis
Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently
Number of systematic reviews included 5371
Summary of Findings Many deficits of methodological and reporting quality were identified of which a few are listed here. Of the reviews using PRISMA, less than 6% provided protocol information and only 30% reported the risk of bias assessment across studies. For reports using QUOROM, only 9% of reviews provided a trial flow diagram and only 46% of reviews described the selection criteria and described the characteristics of included studies. Of reports using AMSTAR, 30% used duplicate study selection and data extraction and only 39% stated conflicts of interest. For reviews using OQAQ, 37% of the reviews assessed risk of bias (validity) in the included studies.
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? Yes