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 • Low methodological quality
• Oncology
• Heterogeneity
Problem(s) • Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
• Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
• No registered or published protocol
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Germany
Checklists • AMSTAR 2
Aim To assess the methodological quality (AMSTAR 2) of systematic reviews in advanced cancer patients indexed across three databases from January 2010 to July 2019.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
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.
Number of systematic reviews included 261
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 6234
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description