| 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 |
• Vaccination • Low methodological quality • Low reporting quality • Pharmacological • Protocols • Disclosure • Expertise |
| Problem(s) |
• Financial conflicts of interest of review authors • 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 |
| 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 summarise the characteristics and adherence to methodological standards in Systematic Reviews with meta-analysis of efficacy/effectiveness of influenza vaccines. Only 45% percent reported protocol registration, 6% reported collaboration with a knowledge synthesis librarian/information specialist, and 60% utilised a reporting checklist (e.g. PRISMA). Of the included reviews 72% did not provide a list of excluded studies, and over half (56%) did not report the sources of funding of included studies. Thirty six reviews (75%) did not assess the risk of bias when performing a meta-analysis. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 48 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 5009 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |