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 Observational studies
Risk of bias
Epidemiology
Problem(s) No quality assessment undertaken or reported
Inclusion of observational / non-randomised studies
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes