- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Insufficient literature searches
- 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 Grey literature Publication bias Oncology Risk of bias Disclosure Low reporting quality Searching |
| 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? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |