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

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 92, Issue , 2017, Pages 79-88

  Gómez García, Francisco ^a   Ruano, Juan ^a   Gay Mimbrera, Jesus ^a   Aguilar Luque, Macarena ^a   Sanz Cabanillas, Juan Luis ^a   Alcalde Mellado, Patricia ^a,b   Maestre López, Beatriz ^a,b   Carmona Fernández, Pedro Jesús ^a   González Padilla, Marcelino ^a   García Nieto, Antonio Vélez ^a   Isla Tejera, Beatriz ^a  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO REINA SOFÍA   (Spain)

^b Universidad de Cordoba   (Spain)

Author keywords

AMSTAR; Methodological quality; Psoriasis; Risk of bias; ROBIS; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSESSING THE METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS TOOL; CHECKLIST; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSORIASIS; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK ASSESSMENT; ROBIS TOOL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; LITERATURE; MALE; SELECTION BIAS; SPAIN;

EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSORIASIS; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SELECTION BIAS; SPAIN;

EID: 85030528541     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.015     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Goff, K.L., Karimkhani, C., Boyers, L.N., Weinstock, M., Lott, J.P., Hay, R.J., et al. The global burden of psoriatic skin disease. Br J Dermatol 172 (2015), 1665–1668.
2. Gómez-García, F., Epstein, D., Isla-Tejera, B., Lorente, A., Vélez García-Nieto, A., Ruano, J., Short-term efficacy and safety of new biological agents targeting the interleukin-23-T helper 17 pathway for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol 176 (2017), 594–603.
3. Nast, A., Jacobs, A., Rosumeck, S., Werner, R.N., Efficacy and safety of systemic long-term treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Invest Dermatol 135 (2015), 2641–2648.
4. Dias, S., Welton, N., NICE DSU Technical Support Document 1: introduction to evidence synthesis for decision making. Nice Dsu, 2011, 2011, 124.
5. Abuabara, K., Freeman, E.E., Dellavalle, R., The role of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in dermatology. J Invest Dermatol, 132, 2012, e2.
6. Lewis, S.J., Orland, B.I., The importance and impact of evidence based medicine. J Manag Care Pharm, 10, 2004, S35.
7. Low, J., Ross, J.S., Ritchie, J.D., Gross, C.P., Lehman, R., Lin, H., et al. Comparison of two independent systematic reviews of trials of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2): the Yale Open Data Access Medtronic Project. Syst Rev, 6, 2017, 28.
8. Ioannidis, J.P.A., The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q, 2016, 485–514.
9. Whiting, P., Savović J., Higgins, J.P.T., Caldwell, D.M., Reeves, B.C., Shea, B., et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 69 (2016), 225–234.
10. Whiting, P., Davies, P., Savovic, J., Caldwell, D., Churchill, R., Evidence to inform the development of ROBIS, a new tool to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews. 2013 Available at http://www.robis-tool.info. (Accessed 11 August 2017)
11. Shea, B.J., Grimshaw, J.M., Wells, G.A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 7, 2007, 10.
12. Faggion, C.M., Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor. BMC Med Res Methodol, 15, 2015, 63.
13. Oliveras, I., Losilla, J.M., Vives, J., Methodological quality is underrated in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in health psychology. J Clin Epidemiol 86 (2017), 59–70.
14. Gómez-García, F., Ruano, J., Aguilar-Luque, M., Gay-Mimbrera, J., Maestre-López, B., Sanz-Cabanillas, J.L., et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on psoriasis: role of funding sources, conflict of interest, and bibliometric indices as predictors of methodological quality. Br J Dermatol 176 (2017), 1633–1644.
15. Sanz-Cabanillas, J.L., Ruano, J., Gómez-García, F., Alcalde-Mellado, P., Gay-Mimbrera, J., Aguilar-Luque, M., et al. Author-paper affiliation network architecture influences the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of psoriasis. PLoS One, 12, 2017, e0175419.
16. Moher, D., Jadad, A.R., Nichol, G., Penman, M., Tugwell, P., Walsh, S., Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 16 (1995), 62–73.
17. Farquhar, C.M., Showell, M.G., Showell, E.A.E., Beetham, P., Baak, N., Mourad, S., et al. Clinical trial registration was not an indicator for low risk of bias. J Clin Epidemiol 84 (2017), 47–53.
18. Shea, B.J., Hamel, C., Wells, G.A., Bouter, L.M., Kristjansson, E., Grimshaw, J., et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 1013–1020.
19. Bekelman, J.E., Li, Y., Gross, C.P., Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289 (2003), 454–465.
20. Lexchin, J., Bero, L.A., Djulbegovic, B., Clark, O., Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326 (2003), 1167–1170.
21. Stelfox, H.T., Chua, G., O'Rourke, K., Detsky, A.S., Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. N Engl J Med 338 (1998), 101–106.
22. Akl, E.A., Briel, M., You, J.J., Sun, X., Johnston, B.C., Busse, J.W., et al. Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review. BMJ, 344, 2012, e2809.
23. Akl, E.A., Kahale, L.A., Agarwal, A., Al-Matari, N., Ebrahim, S., Alexander, P.E., et al. Impact of missing participant data for dichotomous outcomes on pooled effect estimates in systematic reviews: a protocol for a methodological study. Syst Rev, 3, 2014, 137.
24. Barnes, D.E., Bero, L.A., Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 279 (1998), 1566–1570.
25. Liu, D., Jin, J., Tian, J., Yang, K., Quality assessment and factor analysis of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis. PLoS One, 10, 2015, e0120911.
26. Cullis, P.S., Gudlaugsdottir, K., Andrews, J., A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. PLoS One, 12, 2017, e0175213.
27. Saleh, A.A., Ratajeski, M.A., Bertolet, M., Grey literature searching for health sciences systematic reviews: a prospective study of time spent and resources utilized. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract 9 (2014), 28–50.
28. Atakpo, P., Vassar, M., Publication bias in dermatology systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Dermatol Sci 82 (2016), 69–74.
29. Anderson, L., Taylor, R.S., Cardiac rehabilitation for people with heart disease: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 12, 2014, CD011273.
30. Ho, R.S.T., Wu, X., Yuan, J., Liu, S., Lai, X., Wong, S.Y.S., et al. Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool. NPJ Prim Care Respir Med, 25, 2015, 14102.
31. Han, J.L., Gandhi, S., Bockoven, C.G., Narayan, V., Dahm, P., The landscape of systematic reviews in urology (1998 through 2015): an assessment of methodologic quality. BJU Int 119 (2017), 638–649.
32. Martel, G., Duhaime, S., Barkun, J.S., Boushey, R.P., Ramsay, C.R., Fergusson, D.A., The quality of research synthesis in surgery: the case of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Syst Rev, 1, 2012, 14.
33. Hersi, M., Quach, P., Wang, M.-D., Gomes, J., Gaskin, J., Krewski, D., Systematic reviews of factors associated with the onset and progression of neurological conditions in humans: a methodological overview. Neurotoxicology 61 (2017), 12–18.
34. Brown, J., Farquhar, C., Endometriosis: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 3, 2014, CD009590.
35. Fernandes, R.M., Cary, M., Duarte, G., Jesus, G., Alarcāo, J., Torre, C., et al. Effectiveness of needle and syringe programmes in people who inject drugs - an overview of systematic reviews. BMC Public Health, 17, 2017, 309.
36. Nagasawa, D.T., Bui, T.T., Lagman, C., Lee, S.J., Chung, L.K., Niu, T., et al. Isolated transverse process fractures: a systematic analysis. World Neurosurg 100 (2017), 336–341.
37. Viswanathan, M., Treiman, K.A., Kish-Doto, J., Middleton, J.C., Coker-Schwimmer, E.J.L., Nicholson, W.K., Folic acid supplementation for the prevention of neural tube defects: an updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 317 (2017), 190–203.
38. Hamill, J., Rahiri, J.L., Hill, A.G., Analgesic effect of intraperitoneal local anesthetic in surgery: an overview of systematic reviews. J Surg Res 212 (2017), 167–177.
39. Papageorgiou, P.N., Deschner, J., Papageorgiou, S.N., Effectiveness and adverse effects of deep brain stimulation: umbrella review of meta-analyses. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 78 (2017), 180–190.
40. Barbateskovic, M., Larsen, L.K., Oxenböll-Collet, M., Jakobsen, J.C., Perner, A., Wetterslev, J., Pharmacological interventions for delirium in intensive care patients: a protocol for an overview of reviews. Syst Rev, 5, 2016, 211.
41. Dombrowski, S.U., Campbell, P., Frost, H., Pollock, A., McLellan, J., MacGillivray, S., et al. Interventions for sustained healthcare professional behaviour change: a protocol for an overview of reviews. Syst Rev, 5, 2016, 173.
42. Morden, A., Horwood, J., Whiting, P., Savovic, J., Tomlinson, L., Blakeman, T., et al. The risks and benefits of patients temporarily discontinuing medications in the event of an intercurrent illness: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev, 4, 2015, 139.
43. Mathur, S., Conway, D.I., Worlledge-Andrew, H., Macpherson, L.M.D., Ross, A.J., Assessment and prevention of behavioural and social risk factors associated with oral cancer: protocol for a systematic review of clinical guidelines and systematic reviews to inform Primary Care dental professionals. Syst Rev, 4, 2015, 184.
44. PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews [Internet]. [cited 2016 Jan 1]. Available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Accessed May 1, 2017.
45. Jean-Luc, F., Ferrer, P., Gouverneur, A.D., Berkemeyer, S., Vidal, X., et al. A new risk of bias checklist applicable to randomized trials, observational studies and systematic reviews was developed and validated to be used for systematic reviews focusing on drug adverse events. J Clin Epidemiol 86 (2017), 168–175.
46. Burda, B.U., Holmer, H.K., Norris, S.L., Limitations of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and suggestions for improvement. Syst Rev, 5, 2016, 110.