The quality of systematic reviews about interventions for refractive error can be improved: a review of systematic reviews

Ref ID 93
First Author E. Mayo-Wilson
Year Of Publishing 2017
Keywords Statistical
Risk of bias
Problem(s) Insufficient literature searches
Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria
Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data
Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
No quality assessment undertaken or reported
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Inclusion of observational / non-randomised studies
Spin or subjective interpretation of findings
Number of systematic reviews included 39
Summary of Findings Of the 39 included systematic reviews of refractive error 11 were classified to be reliable and 28 as unreliable. Unreliable systematic reviews did not define the criteria for selecting studies (5; 13%), did not assess methodological quality of the individual studies (10; 26%), did not conduct comprehensive literature searches for eligible studies (17; 44%), or used inappropriate quantitative methods, such as combining randomized and non-randomized studies for meta-analysis (3; 8%). All systematic reviews that presented conclusions not supported by the data were also classified as unreliable for another reason (20; 51%).
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