- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Lack of guidance or consistency in systematic overview / umbrella / review of systematic reviews
- Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study
| Ref ID | 500 |
| First Author | K. Pussegoda |
| Journal | SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS |
| Year Of Publishing | 2017 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5477124/pdf/13643_2017_Article_507.pdf |
| Keywords |
Risk of bias General medical Overviews/Umbrella Reviews |
| Problem(s) |
Lack of guidance or consistency in systematic overview / umbrella / review of systematic reviews No quality assessment undertaken or reported |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 76 |
| Summary of Findings | 76 reports were identified in the health care literature which assessed the methodological or reporting quality of systematic reviews. The number of reports has increased over time but the criteria used to assess methodological quality and critical appraisal of systematic reviews varied considerably across reports but sometimes erroneously conflates reporting guidelines e.g. PRISMA, OQAQ, with overall or methodological quality. Some reviews inappropriately use GRADE or the Jadad scale to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. The authors highlight the distinction between methodological quality and risk of bias, the latter of which assesses systemic flaws or limitations in the design, conduct, or analysis of research that distort the findings. |
| 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 |