Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity

Ref ID	71
First Author	T. Nissen
Journal	CLINICAL OBESITY
Year Of Publishing	2017
URL	https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/cob.12174?download=true
Keywords	• External validity • Public health • Paediatrics • Reproducibility • Protocols • Low reporting quality • Searching • Risk of bias
Problem(s)	• No registered or published protocol • Insufficient literature searches • Search strategy not provided • Flawed risk of bias undertaken • Low reporting (PRISMA) quality • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Methods not described to enable replication • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review • Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base • Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality
Number of systematic reviews included	22
Summary of Findings	AMSTAR items appropriately addressed in the 22 included US systematic reviews paediatric participants that had informed clinical practice guidelines was 40.4% (range 9.1 to 81.8%) . The most frequently missed AMSTAR items concerned search quality, search documentation and assessment of bias across the body of evidence. A mean of 62.6% of PRISMA items were clearly reported (14.8% to 85.2%). The most frequently missed PRISMA items concerned review protocol registration, search strategy documentation, evaluation of risk of bias and evidence synthesis.
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