| Ref ID | 892 |
| First Author | H. Motahari-Nezhad |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://www.jmir.org/2022/12/e41042 |
| Keywords |
• Publication bias • General medical • Low reporting quality • Searching • Low methodological quality • Risk of bias • Disclosure |
| Problem(s) |
• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Insufficient literature searches • Poor consideration of publication bias |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Hungary |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 2 |
| Aim | To assess the methodological quality and quality of evidence from meta-analyses of digital biomarker–based interventions. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 25 included systematic reviews with meta-analyses of clinical outcomes (efficacy and safety endpoints) of digital biomarker–based interventions compared with alternative interventions without digital biomarkers indexed across PubMed and the Cochrane Library between 2019-2020. Most reviews (23/25, 92%) had critically low methodological quality according to the assessment using AMSTAR-2. From the 25 reviews 92% did not report a comprehensive literature search or provide a list of excluded studies or funding sources. Only 7 reviews (28%) took risk of bias into account when reporting results and 13 (52%) did not carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 25 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 375 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |