- Framework of problems / Objective
- Spin or subjective interpretation of findings
- 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 |
Statistical Spin Risk of bias Pre-specification Ophthalmology Searching |
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 |