- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
- Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer's disease: a cross-sectional study
| Ref ID | 917 |
| First Author | C.C.W. Zhong |
| Journal | ALZHEIMER'S RESEARCH & THERAPY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://alzres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13195-022-01100-w |
| Keywords |
Cochrane Protocols Pre-specification Disclosure Cognition Neurology Non-Cochrane reviews Low methodological quality |
| Problem(s) |
No registered or published protocol Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 102 |
| Summary of Findings | From 102 included systematic reviews of interventions for Alzheimer’s disease indexed across Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from January 2014 to February 2021. Of 102 reviews, the methodological quality (AMSTAR-2), 48 (47.1%), and 36 (35.3%) was low, and critically low quality, respectively. The following significant methodological limitations were identified: only 22.5% of systematic reviews registered protocols a priori, 6.9% discussed the rationales of chosen study designs, 21.6% gave a list of excluded studies with reasons, and 23.5% documented funding sources of primary studies. Cochrane systematic reviews (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 31.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.81–266.9) and systematic reviews of pharmacological treatments (AOR: 3.96, 95%CI: 1.27–12.3) were related to the higher overall methodological quality of systematic reviews. |
| 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 |