- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
- Is the quality of systematic reviews influenced by prospective registration: a methods review of systematic musculoskeletal physical therapy reviews
| Ref ID | 903 |
| First Author | S.P. Riley |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF MANUAL & MANIPULATIVE THERAPY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10669817.2022.2110419 |
| Keywords |
Protocols Transparency Pre-specification Musculoskeletal Non-Cochrane reviews Low methodological quality |
| Problem(s) |
Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality No registered or published protocol Undocumented or unjustified deviations to the review protocol |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 20 |
| Summary of Findings | From twenty included musculoskeletal systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE, between 1 January 2018 and 18 August 2021. One (5.0%) of the 20 included reviews were prospectively registered and published. Of these, 13 (65.0%) were registered through PROSPERO, 2 (15.4%) prospectively, and 11 retrospectively. Nineteen (95.0%) of the 20 identified systematic reviews was categorized as ‘critically low’ methodological quality (AMSTAR 2). The AMSTAR-2 items that were least reported were: availability or deviation from a protocol; authors explaining their selection of the study designs for inclusion; authors providing a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions; authors reporting on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review. |
| 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? |