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
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
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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes