Methodological quality was critically low in 9/10 systematic reviews in advanced cancer patients-A methodological study

Ref ID 817
First Author W. Siemens
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2021
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435621000822?casa_token=nUz7DVeT8zUAAAAA:UadPF23317NNeA8EDaOll8_wKbA6q7QYmAH27KLfTKtcFQ823aFPGs-bS5J85vQKJ8x0MpuFS6M#sec0002
Keywords Heterogeneity
Oncology
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
No registered or published protocol
Number of systematic reviews included 261
Summary of Findings From 261 systematic reviews in advanced cancer patients indexed across Medline (via Ovid), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (via Wiley) and Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded) from January 2010 to July 2019. Of the 61 included reviews, 80.1% (n=209) were classified as critically low quality according to AMSTAR 2. 85.1% (n=222) did not register a protocol. 83.5% (n=218). Heterogeneity in trial results was not explored at all in 51 (19.5%) did not report of excluded full-texts and missing justifications for exclusion. Clinical heterogeneity was considered in 117 (44.8%), methodological heterogeneity in 13 (5.0%), and both clinical and methodological heterogeneity in 80 (30.7%) SRs.
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