Characteristics and methodological standards across systematic reviews with Meta-analysis of efficacy and/or effectiveness of influenza vaccines: an overview of reviews

Ref ID 897
First Author G.N. Okoli
Year Of Publishing 2022
Keywords Protocols
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