The methodological quality and clinical applicability of meta-analyses on probiotics in 2020: A cross-sectional study

Ref ID 815
First Author J. Ruszkowski
Year Of Publishing 2021
Keywords Nutrition
External validity
Vitamins and supplements
Journalology/ Publication science
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
No registered or published protocol
Intervention not described / defined
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Number of systematic reviews included 114
Summary of Findings From 114 systematic reviews with meta-analyses on probiotics indexed across Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to January 2021, the overall confidence in the results was rated as “critically low” in 77% (n=88). The most prevalent flaws were lack of list of excluded studies with justification (79.8%), lack of study protocol (60.5%), and problems with appropriate results combination (54.4%). Higher Journal Impact Factor was associated with higher odds of protocol pre-registration, publishing a list of excluded studies, and performing appropriate meta-analytical methods.
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