| 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 |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United States |
| Aim | To assess the quality and reliability of samples of systematic reviews of Refractive Error published between 1996 and 2016. Systematic reviews were judged as “reliable” when they (1) defined criteria for the selection of studies, (2) conducted comprehensive literature searches for eligible studies, (3) assessed the methodological quality (risk of bias) of the included studies, (4) used appropriate methods for meta-analyses (assessed only when meta-analyses were reported), (5) presented conclusions that were supported by the evidence provided in the review. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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%). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 39 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 1895 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |