- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Flawed risk of bias undertaken
- 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 |