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 Protocols
Surgery
Missing data
Statistical
Expertise
Error
Risk of bias
Pre-specification
Low reporting quality
Searching
Problem(s) 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
Errors in study inclusion or omission of relevant studies
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes