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