| Ref ID | 896 |
| First Author | G.N. Okoli |
| Journal | CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH & OPINION |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03007995.2022.2100655 |
| Keywords |
• Protocols • Transparency • Pharmacological • Low methodological quality • Risk of bias • Disclosure • Expertise |
| Problem(s) |
• No registered or published protocol • Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality • Literature searches not validated by information specialist • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Canada |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 2 |
| Aim | To systematically identify, critically appraise, and summarize the characteristics and adherence to methodological standards in SRs with meta-analysis of efficacy/effectiveness of influenza antiviral drugs for prevention and/or treatment of influenza. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 24 included systematic reviews of influenza antiviral drugs for prevention and/or treatment of influenza indexed across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Global Health, and CDSR up to July 2020. Seventy-five percent of the included reviews (n = 18) were of a critically low methodological quality (AMSTAR 2), 8% (n = 2) of a low quality. Only 33% percent (n = 8) reported protocol registration, 4% (n = 1) reported collaboration with a knowledge synthesis librarian/information specialist, and 17% (n = 4) utilized a systematic review reporting checklist. There was no justification for study design in 75% (n=18) and 62.5% (n=15) did not provide a list of excluded studies. Eighty-three per cent of the reviews (n=20) did not report sources of funding of included studies, nor took in the risk of bias assessments when performing a meta-analysis. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 24 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 3898 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |