Not all systematic reviews are created equal

Ref ID 680
First Author J.F. Farragher
Journal CANADIAN JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY
Year Of Publishing 2018
URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0008417418773328
Keywords • Physiotherapy
• Heterogeneity
• Protocols
• Low reporting quality
• Disclosure
• Risk of bias
• Pre-specification
Problem(s) • Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
• Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
• Flawed risk of bias undertaken
• No registered or published protocol
• Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria
• Intervention not described / defined
• Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
Article Type Editorial
Article Subtype Discussion piece
First Author Country Canada
Checklists • AMSTAR 2
Aim Discusses four systematic reviews in occupational therapy that were examined by authors during their PhD studies.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings Frequent errors in the four included systematic reviews of occupational therapy included: no registered or published protocol; Flawed risk of bias undertaken; Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed;; Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported; Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria; Intervention not described / defined; Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
Number of systematic reviews included 4
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 4
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description