- Framework of problems / Transparent
- No registered or published protocol
- 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 |
| 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 |
| 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? | N/A |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |