- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality
- Chinese patent medicine Kanglaite injection for non-small-cell lung cancer: An overview of systematic reviews
|JOURNAL OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY
|Year Of Publishing
Complimentary & Alternative
Risk of bias
Low methodological quality
Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality
Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
No registered or published protocol
Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
|Number of systematic reviews included
|Summary of Findings
|From 20 included systematic reviews of Kanglaite injection (KLTi) for non-small-cell lung cancer indexed across 12 databases up to March 24 2022. The methodological quality of the methods used in all studies was critically low (AMSTAR 2). The most problematic items were: none of the researchers provided a list of excluded literature and their reasons; the authors did not explain the reasons for including the type of study design; they did not investigate the source of funding for the included studies; did not adequately discuss the potential impact of the risk of bias on the integration of meta-analyses. Only 2/20 systematic reviews reported having a protocol.
|Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?