- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
- An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Acupuncture in the Treatment of Essential Hypertension
Ref ID | 918 |
First Author | M. Zhou |
Journal | INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GENERAL MEDICINE |
Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
URL | https://www.dovepress.com/an-overview-of-systematic-reviews-acupuncture-in-the-treatment-of-esse-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJGM |
Keywords |
Cardiology Complimentary & Alternative |
Problem(s) |
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria Insufficient literature searches Single reviewer / lack of double checking Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data Poor consideration of publication bias Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality |
Number of systematic reviews included | 11 |
Summary of Findings | From 11 included systematic reviews of acupuncture for essential hypertension indexed across Pubmed, Embase, The Cochrane library, WOS, CBM, CNKI, Wangfang Data, VIP and other Chinese and English databases from inception to 13th October 2022. The methodological quality (AMSTAR 2) was mostly very low. 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 (0%), using a comprehensive search strategy (27%), performing study selection in duplicate (18%), authors providing a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions (45%), using appropriate methods for statistical combination of results (45%), assessing the potential impact of Risk of Bias in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis (36%), carrying out an adequate investigation of publication bias (45%), and review authors reporting any potential sources of conflict of interest, including funding (9%). |
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 |