- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
- 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 |