- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
- 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 |