Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews in radiation oncology: A systematic review

Ref ID	79
First Author	H. Hasan
Journal	CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing	2017
URL	https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1877782117301406?via%3Dihub
Keywords	• Transparency • Disclosure • Oncology • Grey literature • Publication bias • Low reporting quality • Searching • Risk of bias
Problem(s)	• Insufficient literature searches • Grey literature excluded • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Poor consideration of publication bias • No quality assessment undertaken or reported • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
Number of systematic reviews included	157
Summary of Findings	The majority of included systematic reviews had below fair AMSTAR quality. 0% of included reviews reported conflicts of interest. 6% of studies provided a list of excluded studies; grey literature was included in only 24% of reviews; duplicate study selection and data extraction were performed in 31% of reviews; quality assessment was incorporated into 31% of review conclusions; a comprehensive literature search was performed in 35% of reviews; quality assessment was performed/reported in 43% of reviews.
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