Methodological quality and redundancy of systematic reviews that compare endarterectomy versus stenting for carotid stenosis

Ref ID	522
First Author	J. F. W. Mendoza
Journal	BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE
Year Of Publishing	2019
URL	https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31266765/
Keywords	• Surgery • Protocols • Missing data • Statistical • Expertise • Error • Low reporting quality • Searching • Risk of bias • Pre-specification
Problem(s)	• Errors in study inclusion or omission of relevant studies • No registered or published protocol • Insufficient literature searches • Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria • Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data • Flawed risk of bias undertaken • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Number of systematic reviews included	17
Summary of Findings	Overall confidence in the results was graded as critically low for 94% of systematic reviews and low for 6% of systematic reviews. Inadequate methodology related to: reference to a published protocol, explanation of selection of study design, comprehensive search of the literature, methods for statistical combination of findings and consideration of the risk of bias on the results of meta-analysis. Additionally the number of included RCTs in each systematic review was inconsistent (4 to 15) and was not related to the year of publication.
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