Most systematic reviews of high methodological quality on psoriasis interventions are classified as high risk of bias using ROBIS tool

Publication date: Available online 9 September 2017
Source:Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Author(s): F. Gómez-García, J. Ruano, J. Gay-Mimbrera, M. Aguilar-Luque, J.L. Sanz-Cabanillas, P. Alcalde-Mellado, B. Maestre-López, P.J. Carmona-Fernández, M. González-Padilla, A. Vélez García-Nieto, B. Isla-Tejera
AbstractObjectivesNo gold standard exists to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs). Although AMSTAR is widely accepted for analysing quality, the ROBIS instrument has recently been developed. This study aimed to compare the capacity of both instruments to capture the quality of SRs concerning psoriasis interventions.Study Design and SettingSystematic literature searches were undertaken on relevant databases. For each review, methodological quality and bias risk were evaluated using the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools. Descriptive and principal component analyses were conducted to describe similarities and discrepancies between both assessment tools.ResultsWe classified 139 intervention SRs as displaying high/moderate/low methodological quality, and as high/low risk of bias. A high risk of bias was detected for most SRs classified as displaying high or moderate methodological quality by AMSTAR. When comparing ROBIS result profiles, responses to domain 4 signalling questions showed the greatest differences between bias risk assessments, while domain 2 items showed the least.ConclusionWhen considering SRs published about psoriasis, methodological quality remains suboptimal, and the risk of bias is elevated, even for SRs exhibiting high methodological quality. Further, the AMSTAR and ROBIS tools may be considered as complementary when conducting quality assessment of SRs.



from ! ORL Sfakianakis via paythelady.61 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2wQkpxE
via IFTTT