The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study

Ref ID	76
First Author	K. Matthias
Journal	HELIYON
Year Of Publishing	2020
URL	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7479282/pdf/main.pdf
Keywords	• Publication bias • Heterogeneity • Low reporting quality • Searching • Risk of bias • Pre-specification • Mental health • Single reviewer
Problem(s)	• No registered or published protocol • Insufficient literature searches • Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently • Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity • Poor consideration of publication bias • Flawed risk of bias undertaken • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Number of systematic reviews included	60
Summary of Findings	Overall confidence in the results of the included 60 systematic reviews: four reviews were rated “high”, two were “moderate”, one was “low” and 53 were “critically low”. Limitations included: No registered or published protocol; Insufficient literature searches; Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria; Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided; Single reviewer / lack of double checking; Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently; Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity; Poor consideration of publication bias; Flawed risk of bias undertaken.
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