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 • Ophthalmology • Disclosure • Low methodological quality • Non-Cochrane reviews • Low reporting quality • Protocols
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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes