The methodological quality of systematic reviews regarding the Core Outcome Set (COS) development

Ref ID	999
First Author	H. Cao
Journal	BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Year Of Publishing	2024
URL	https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-024-02182-w
Keywords	Neurology Musculoskeletal Gastroenterology Urology Outcomes
Problem(s)	No registered or published protocol Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting
Number of systematic reviews included	175
Summary of Findings	The study included 175 SRs mainly focused on five diseases: musculoskeletal system or connective tissue disease, injury or poisoning, digestive system disease, nervous system disease, and genitourinary system disease. Although 88.00% of SRs included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), only a few SRs (23.38%) employed appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias in RCTs. AMSTAR 2.0 assessment indicated that most SRs (93.71%) were rated as ‘’critically low’’ to ‘’low’’ in terms of overall confidence. The overall confidence of SRs with protocols was significantly higher than that without protocols (P <.001). Compared to the SRs with protocols on Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), SRs with protocols on PROSPERO were of better overall confidence (P = .017).
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?