- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Incorrect interpretation or statistical inference error from meta-analysis
- Quality of systematic reviews on timing of complementary feeding for early childhood allergy prevention
| Ref ID | 890 |
| First Author | U. Matterne |
| Journal | BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
| URL | https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-023-01899-4 |
| Keywords |
Paediatrics Risk of bias Pre-specification Disclosure Low reporting quality Non-Cochrane reviews |
| Problem(s) |
Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Incorrect interpretation or statistical inference error from meta-analysis Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality High risk of bias (ROBIS) Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 12 |
| Summary of Findings | From twelve systematic reviews of the effects of earlier versus later introduction of complementary feeding on the incidence of allergy/allergic disease in infants and children indexed across PubMed, Medline (Ovid), and Web of Science Core Collection on 13th January 2022. Nine of the 12 included systematic reviews (75%) were found to be of critically low to low methodological quality according to AMSTAR-2 and to be at high risk of bias according to ROBIS. Half of the reviews did not provide an adequate explanation of the study designs for inclusion; half did not provide a list of excluded studies and the reasons for exclusion. Nine of the 12 reviews (75%) did not consider funding sources for the included studies. Using ROBIS, only 2 reviews were judged to have specified adequate eligibility criteria; all others were downgraded. Concerns regarding the identification and selection of relevant studies were raised by 8 reviews (66.6%). Nine of the reviews (75%) were found to show major flaws in their synthesis and findings approach. |
| 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 |