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