- Framework of problems / Objective
- Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data
- Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis on Asthma Treatments. A Cross-Sectional Study
|ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY
|Year Of Publishing
Risk of bias
Low reporting quality
Low methodological quality
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
|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?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?