- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality
- Identification of outcomes reported for hospital antimicrobial stewardship interventions using a systematic review of reviews
|Year Of Publishing
Low methodological quality
Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality
Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
|Number of systematic reviews included
|Summary of Findings
|From 41 included systematic reviews of hospital antimicrobial stewardship interventions indexed across the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE and Embase up to August 2019. There was significant heterogeneity in outcomes reported for hospital AMS interventions. Reported outcomes did not cover all domains of the COMET framework and may miss outcomes relevant to patients (e.g. emotional, social functioning, etc.). Of the 41 included studies, thirty-three (81%) systematic reviews were of critically low or low quality. The AMSTAR-2 items that were least reported were: authors explaining their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review (12%); authors providing a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions (36%); and authors not reporting on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review (24%) and authors assessing the potential impact of risk of bias in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis (41%).
|Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?