Methodological quality of systematic reviews on atopic dermatitis treatments: a cross-sectional study

References

• DynaMed. Atopic dermatitis ipswich., United States: EBSCO Information Services; 2023 [cited 2023 Mar 13]. Available from: https://www.dynamed.com/condition/atopic-dermatitis.
   Google Scholar
• Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Chamlin SL, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 1. Diagnosis and assessment of atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70(2):1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.10.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eichenfield LF, Tom WL, Berger TG, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of atopic dermatitis: section 2. Management and treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical therapies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71(1):116–132. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.03.023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weidinger S, Beck LA, Bieber T, et al. Atopic dermatitis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2018;4(1):1. doi: 10.1038/s41572-018-0001-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverberg JI. Public health burden and epidemiology of atopic dermatitis. Dermatol Clin. 2017;35(3):283–289. doi: 10.1016/j.det.2017.02.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. London, (UK): The Cochrane Collaboration; 2020 [cited 2023 Jun 22]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook.
   Google Scholar
• Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston A, Kelly SE, Hsieh SC, et al. Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;108:64–76. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.030.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhong CCW, Zhao J, Wong CHL, et al. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2022;14(1):159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho L, Ke FYT, Wong CHL, et al. Low methodological quality of systematic reviews on acupuncture: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):237. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01437-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsoi AKN, Ho L, Wu IXY, et al. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for osteoporosis: a cross-sectional study. Bone. 2020;139:115541. Octdoi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung AKL, Wong CHL, Ho L, et al. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on chinese herbal medicine: a methodological survey. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2022;22(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12906-022-03529-w.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu IXY, Deng Y, Wang H, et al. Methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis on asthma treatments. A cross-sectional study. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;17(8):949–957. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202003-187OC.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho L, Chen X, Kwok YL, et al. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on sepsis treatments: a cross-sectional study. Am J Emerg Med. 2023;77:21–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.12.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMaster Health Information Research Unit. Search Strategies for PsycINFO in Ovid Syntax. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster Health Information Research Unit; 2023 [cited 2023 Jun 20]. Available from: https://hiruweb.mcmaster.ca/hkr/hedges/psycinfo/.
   Google Scholar
• McMaster Health Information Research Unit. Search Strategies for EMBASE in Ovid Syntax. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster Health Information Research Unit; 2023 [cited 2023 Jun 20]. Available from: https://hiruweb.mcmaster.ca/hkr/hedges/embase/.
   Google Scholar
• McMaster Health Information Research Unit. Search Filters for MEDLINE in Ovid Syntax and the PubMed translation. Hamilton, Ontario: McMaster Health Information Research Unit; 2023 [cited 2023 Jun 20]. Available from: https://hiruweb.mcmaster.ca/hkr/hedges/medline/.
   Google Scholar
• Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Williamson PR. Bias due to changes in specified outcomes during the systematic review process. PLoS One. 2010;5(3):e9810–e9810. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009810.[PMC] [20339557
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The PLoS Medicine Editors. Best practice in systematic reviews: the importance of protocols and registration. PLoS Med. 2011;8(2):e1001009. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centre for Reviews and Dissemination – University of York. About PROSPERO. York, United Kingdom: centre for Reviews and Dissemination – University of York; 2020 [cited 2023 Jun 22]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#aboutpage.
   Google Scholar
• Morrison A, Polisena J, Husereau D, et al. The effect of english-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(2):138–144. doi: 10.1017/S0266462312000086.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walpole SC. Including papers in languages other than English in systematic reviews: important, feasible, yet often omitted. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:127–134. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson JL, Kuriyama A, Anton A, et al. The accuracy of google translate for abstracting data from non-English-language trials for systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(9):677–679. doi: 10.7326/M19-0891.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faggion CM. Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0062-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias – an updated review. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e66844. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066844.[PMC] [23861749
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Almeida MO, Yamato TP, Parreira P, et al. Overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews on exercise therapy for chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional analysis using the assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool. Braz J Phys Ther. 2020;24(2):103–117. doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2019.04.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickersin K, Min YI. Publication bias: the problem that won’t go away. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1993;703(1):135–148. discussion 146-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26343.x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One. 2008;3(8):e3081. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis JP. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA. 1998;279(4):281–286. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.4.281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, et al. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2007(2):Mr000011.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Assen MA, van Aert RC, Wicherts JM. Meta-analysis using effect size distributions of only statistically significant studies. Psychol Methods. 2015;20(3):293–309. doi: 10.1037/met0000025.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arents BWM, van Zuuren EJ, Vermeulen S, et al. Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP), a systematic review of atopic dermatitis clinical practice guidelines: are they clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence based (CUTE)? Br J Dermatol. 2022;186(5):792–802. doi: 10.1111/bjd.20972.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mittal N, Goyal M, Mittal PK. Understanding and appraising systematic reviews and meta-analysis. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2017;41(5):317–326. doi: 10.17796/1053-4628-41.5.317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar