| 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 |
| 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 reporting quality (PRISMA) and methodological quality (AMSTAR) of systematic reviews that underpin US clinical practice guidelines regarding paediatric obesity, published between 1996 and 2012. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 22 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 3384 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |