Appraising the Quality of Systematic Reviews for Age-Related Macular Degeneration Interventions: A Systematic Review

Ref ID 737
First Author L.Downie
Journal JAMA OPHTHALMOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2018
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29978192/
Keywords Cochrane
Protocols
Disclosure
Ophthalmology
Low reporting quality
Non-Cochrane reviews
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) No registered or published protocol
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing
Number of systematic reviews included 71
Summary of Findings Methodological quality of the 71 included systematic reviews of age-related macular degeneration published up to March 2017 was highly variable. The mean (SD) AMSTAR score was 5.8 (3.2) of 11.0, with no significant improvement over time (r = −0.03; 95%CI, −0.26 to 0.21; P = .83). Cochrane systematic reviews were overall of higher quality than reviews in other journals (mean [SD] AMSTAR score, 9.9 [1.2], n = 15 vs 4.7 [2.2], n = 56; P < .001). Overall, there was poor adherence to referring to an a priori design (22 articles [31%]) and reporting conflicts of interest in both the review and included studies (16 articles [23%]). Reviews funded by government grants and/or institutions were generally of higher quality than industry-sponsored reviews or where the funding source was not reported.
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