- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
- Quality of reporting among systematic reviews underpinning the ESC/ACC guidelines on ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death
| Ref ID | 940 |
| First Author | E. P. Garrett |
| Journal | BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://ebm.bmj.com/content/27/6/352.long |
| Keywords |
Cardiology Low reporting quality Non-Cochrane reviews Low methodological quality |
| Problem(s) |
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality Low reporting (PRISMA) quality Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 55 |
| Summary of Findings | From 55 included systematic reviews supporting the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology clinical practice guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death published between 1989 and 2018. The methodological (AMSTAR 2) and reporting quality (PRISMA) of systematic reviews used within the clinical practice guidelines was found to be insufficient. The reporting quality of over 40% of the included SRs were found to be ‘critically low’ using the AMSTAR-2 evaluation tool. Cochrane SRs were higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews. A key area of concern was the number of studies that did not disclose funding sources and conflicts of interest statements. |
| 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 |