- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality
- Methodological quality, completeness of reporting and use of systematic reviews as evidence in clinical practice guidelines for paediatric overweight and obesity
|Year Of Publishing
Risk of bias
Low reporting quality
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
|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?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?