The quality of systematic reviews in hand surgery: An analysis using AMSTAR

Ref ID 77
First Author O. A. Samargandi
Year Of Publishing 2014
Keywords Surgery
Problem(s) Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
Following guidelines is no guarantee of a rigorous systematic review
Number of systematic reviews included 14
Summary of Findings The authors highlight that a previous cross sectional study had found moderate AMSTAR quality in systematic reviews of hand surgery. However the authors had not applied two criteria stringently. Namely, where included reviews did not provide excluded studies but did report included studies, this was overlooked. Also where funding for both included studies and the review authors should be stated, the authors had overlooked if only one had been provided. The authors identified and analysed a sample of 14 hand surgery systematic reviews were identified. Applying the same AMSTAR assessment, on these studies, focusing on the two aforementioned criteria discussed previously. They found that only 21.4 percent (versus 88.1 percent) of studies provided a list of included and excluded studies and none of the studies (versus 81 percent) provided a clear acknowledgment of potential source of support in the systematic review and the included studies.
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? No