Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis on Asthma Treatments. A Cross-Sectional Study

Ref ID 723
First Author I.X.Y. Wu
Journal ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY
Year Of Publishing 2020
URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.202003-187OC
Keywords Cochrane
Protocols
Expertise
Publication bias
Risk of bias
Disclosure
Immunology
Low reporting quality
Non-Cochrane reviews
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) No registered or published protocol
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data
Poor consideration of publication bias
Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality
Number of systematic reviews included 136
Summary of Findings From 126 included systematic reviews of asthma treatment, 23.5% of reviews were of low methodological quality and 61% were of critically low quality. Cochrane reviews and reviews with a European corresponding author were significantly more likely to be high quality than non-Cochrane systematic reviews or reviews with a corresponding author from America, Asia or Oceania..
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes