| Ref ID | 883 |
| First Author | H. Li |
| Journal | EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY & ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE: ECAM |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2022/3151936/ |
| Keywords |
• Musculoskeletal • Pre-specification • Rheumatology • Disclosure • Low methodological quality • Searching • Low reporting quality • Protocols • Complementary & Alternative |
| Problem(s) |
• Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently • Undocumented or unjustified deviations to the review protocol • Insufficient literature searches • Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing • No registered or published protocol • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | China |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 2 |
| Aim | To summarize the quantity and quality of evidence for using Tripterygium wilfordii Hook. f. preparations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and to find the reasons of the disparity by comprehensively appraising the related systematic reviews. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 27 included systematic reviews of sing Tripterygium wilfordii Hook. f. preparations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis indexed across The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, VIP database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, CBM, and WanFang up to July 13 2021. Out of the 27 included systematic reviews, 20 were rated critically low methodological quality (AMSTAR 2). 92.6% did not report a publicly available protocol and significant deviations from the protocol were found; 91.49% did not provide a list of excluded studies and justified the exclusions; 96.3% did not explain the selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review; 81.49% did not use a comprehensive literature search strategy; 66.67% did not report any potential sources of conflicts of interest; and 66.67% described the included studies insufficiently. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 27 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 238 |