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 Mental health
Publication bias
Heterogeneity
Risk of bias
Pre-specification
Low reporting quality
Searching
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes