An overview of the characteristics and methodological standards across systematic reviews with Meta-analysis of efficacy/effectiveness of influenza antiviral drugs

Ref ID 896
First Author G.N. Okoli
Year Of Publishing 2022
Keywords Protocols
Risk of bias
Low methodological quality
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
Number of systematic reviews included 24
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.
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