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 • Immunology
• Non-Cochrane reviews
• Low reporting quality
• Publication bias
• Expertise
• Cochrane
• Low methodological quality
• Disclosure
• Risk of bias
• Protocols
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
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country China
Checklists • AMSTAR 2
Aim To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews of asthma treatment published between 2013 and 2019 using AMSTAR 2.
Level of Investigation Analytical
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..
Number of systematic reviews included 136
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 2242