- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
- Harms reporting by systematic reviews for functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a cross-sectional analysis
Ref ID | 878 |
First Author | G. Jones |
Journal | EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY |
Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
URL | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00405-022-07803-y |
Keywords |
Harms Protocols Surgery Risk of bias Low methodological quality |
Problem(s) |
Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review No registered or published protocol Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality |
Number of systematic reviews included | 55 |
Summary of Findings | From 55 included systematic reviews of functional endoscopic sinus surgery indexed across MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on May 15th, 2022. Of the included systematic reviews, 19 (19/55, 34.5%) did not report harms and 39 (39/55, 70.9%) reported half of the harms items or fewer. The study found that 23 (23/55, 41.8%) of Systematic Reviews demonstrated a method of harms data collection, 26 (26/55, 47.3%) had patients available for harms analysis in their results, and 25 (25/55, 45.5%) had a balanced discussion of harms and benefits of the surgery. Over half of the Systematic Reviews were appraised as “critically low” quality using AMSTAR-2. |
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 |