Paper – Systematic Reviewlution

Ref ID	897
First Author	G.N. Okoli
Journal	INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Year Of Publishing	2022
URL	https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23744235.2022.2114537
Keywords	Protocols Pharmacological Expertise Vaccination Disclosure Low reporting quality Low methodological quality
Problem(s)	Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality Literature searches not validated by information specialist Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Low reporting (PRISMA) quality Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality No registered or published protocol Financial conflicts of interest of review authors
Number of systematic reviews included	48
Summary of Findings	From 48 included systematic reviews of influenza vaccines indexed across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Global Health, and CDSR up to July 11 2022. Seventy-five percent of the included reviews were of a critically methodological low quality (AMSTAR 2) and 19% were of a low quality. Excluded studies were listed and justified in only 11 reviews (23%); characteristics of studies provided in detail in just seven reviews (15%); sources of funding of included studies were not reported in over half of the reviews (56%); risk of bias was not accounted for in meta-analysis in 36 reviews (75%). 13% of the reviews were industry-funded. About 13% of the reviews were co-authored by industry employee(s). 4% of the reviews were commissioned by an organisation/authority. 45% of the reviews reported protocol registration. 6% of the reviews reported collaborating with a knowledge synthesis librarian/information specialist to prepare the search strategy. 60% of the reviews reported using the PRISMA (or similar) checklist.
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