Variable methodological quality and use found in systematic reviews referenced in STEMI clinical practice guidelines

Ref ID	66
First Author	J. Scott
Journal	THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Year Of Publishing	2017
URL	https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28623004/
Keywords	• Cardiology • Emergency medicine • Transparency • Disclosure • Protocols • Publication bias • Low reporting quality
Problem(s)	• Poor consideration of publication bias • Flawed risk of bias undertaken • Low reporting (PRISMA) quality • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported • Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing • Search strategy not provided • No registered or published protocol
Number of systematic reviews included	71
Summary of Findings	A number of deficiencies in PRISMA and AMSTAR adherence were noted across the 71 systematic reviews that had informed clinical practice guidelines for ST-elevation myocardial infarction management. These included disclosure of funding sources; risk of bias; and publication bias according to AMSTAR. PRISMA checklist completeness ranged from 44% to 96%. The PRISMA scores indicated that systematic reviews did not provide a full search strategy, study protocol and registration, assessment of publication bias or report funding sources
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