Replication of systematic reviews: is it to the benefit or detriment of methodological quality?

Ref ID 928
First Author C. Chapelle
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2023
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435623002184
Keywords Reproducibility
Risk of bias
Non-Cochrane reviews
Overlapping reviews/redundancy
Low methodological quality
Haematology
Problem(s) Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
High risk of bias (ROBIS)
Number of systematic reviews included 144
Summary of Findings From 144 included systematic reviews evaluating direct oral anticoagulants in patients treated for an acute venous thromboembolism indexed in PubMed from inception to January 31, 2022. 26 systematic reviews (18.1%) were classified as original, 87 (60.4%) as conceptual replications, and 31 (21.5%) as excessive replications (redundant). The risk of bias was high in 19 (73.1%) of the original systematic reviews, 65 (74.7%) of the conceptual replications, and 21 (67.7%) of the excessive replications. Compared to the original systematic reviews, the overall methodological quality was not improved in either conceptual or excessive replications.
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