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
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country United States
Checklists • PRISMA 2009
• AMSTAR 1
Aim To assess the methodological quality (AMSTAR) and reporting quality (PRISMA) of systematic reviews that informed clinical practice guidelines for ST-elevation myocardial infarction management.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
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
Number of systematic reviews included 71
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 1698
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description