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
Journal	BMC OPHTHALMOLOGY
Year Of Publishing	2017
URL	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5584039/pdf/12886_2017_Article_561.pdf
Keywords	• Ophthalmology • Spin • Pre-specification • Risk of bias • Searching • Statistical
Problem(s)	• Inclusion of observational / non-randomised studies • Spin or subjective interpretation of findings • 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
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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes