Systematic reviews synthesized evidence without consistent quality assessment of primary studies examining epidemiology of chronic diseases

Ref ID 620
First Author T. Shamliyan
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2012
URL https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(11)00378-7/fulltext
Keywords • Risk of bias
• Observational studies
• Epidemiology
Problem(s) • Inclusion of observational / non-randomised studies
• No quality assessment undertaken or reported
• Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
Number of systematic reviews included 145
Summary of Findings Planned quality assessment was reported in 37% of systematic reviews; just over half of the systematic reviews (number not reported) used the quality of primary studies in their evidence syntheses
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