- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
- 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 |