Cargando…

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Carefully conducted systematic reviews (SRs) can provide reliable evidence on the effectiveness of treatment strategies for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Nevertheless, the reliability of SR results can be limited by methodological flaws. This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the method...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhong, Claire C. W., Zhao, Jinglun, Wong, Charlene H. L., Wu, Irene X. Y., Mao, Chen, Yeung, Jerry W. F., Chung, Vincent C. H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9617345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36309725
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13195-022-01100-w
_version_ 1784820819453542400
author Zhong, Claire C. W.
Zhao, Jinglun
Wong, Charlene H. L.
Wu, Irene X. Y.
Mao, Chen
Yeung, Jerry W. F.
Chung, Vincent C. H.
author_facet Zhong, Claire C. W.
Zhao, Jinglun
Wong, Charlene H. L.
Wu, Irene X. Y.
Mao, Chen
Yeung, Jerry W. F.
Chung, Vincent C. H.
author_sort Zhong, Claire C. W.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Carefully conducted systematic reviews (SRs) can provide reliable evidence on the effectiveness of treatment strategies for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Nevertheless, the reliability of SR results can be limited by methodological flaws. This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the methodological quality of SRs on AD treatments, along with potentially relevant factors. METHODS: To identify eligible SRs on AD treatments, four databases including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 instrument was used for quality appraisal of SRs. Multivariable regression analyses were used to examine factors related to methodological quality. RESULTS: A total of 102 SRs were appraised. Four (3.90%) SRs were considered as high quality; 14 (13.7%), 48 (47.1%), and 36 (35.3%) were as moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. The following significant methodological limitations were identified: only 22.5% of SRs registered protocols a priori, 6.9% discussed the rationales of chosen study designs, 21.6% gave a list of excluded studies with reasons, and 23.5% documented funding sources of primary studies. Cochrane SRs (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 31.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.81–266.9) and SRs of pharmacological treatments (AOR: 3.96, 95%CI: 1.27–12.3) were related to the higher overall methodological quality of SRs. CONCLUSION: Methodological quality of SRs on AD treatments is unsatisfactory, especially among non-Cochrane SRs and SRs of non-pharmacological interventions. Improvement in the following methodological domains requires particular attention due to poor performance: registering and publishing protocols a priori, justifying study design selection, providing a list of excluded studies, and reporting funding sources of primary studies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13195-022-01100-w.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9617345
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96173452022-10-30 Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study Zhong, Claire C. W. Zhao, Jinglun Wong, Charlene H. L. Wu, Irene X. Y. Mao, Chen Yeung, Jerry W. F. Chung, Vincent C. H. Alzheimers Res Ther Research BACKGROUND: Carefully conducted systematic reviews (SRs) can provide reliable evidence on the effectiveness of treatment strategies for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Nevertheless, the reliability of SR results can be limited by methodological flaws. This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the methodological quality of SRs on AD treatments, along with potentially relevant factors. METHODS: To identify eligible SRs on AD treatments, four databases including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 instrument was used for quality appraisal of SRs. Multivariable regression analyses were used to examine factors related to methodological quality. RESULTS: A total of 102 SRs were appraised. Four (3.90%) SRs were considered as high quality; 14 (13.7%), 48 (47.1%), and 36 (35.3%) were as moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. The following significant methodological limitations were identified: only 22.5% of SRs registered protocols a priori, 6.9% discussed the rationales of chosen study designs, 21.6% gave a list of excluded studies with reasons, and 23.5% documented funding sources of primary studies. Cochrane SRs (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 31.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.81–266.9) and SRs of pharmacological treatments (AOR: 3.96, 95%CI: 1.27–12.3) were related to the higher overall methodological quality of SRs. CONCLUSION: Methodological quality of SRs on AD treatments is unsatisfactory, especially among non-Cochrane SRs and SRs of non-pharmacological interventions. Improvement in the following methodological domains requires particular attention due to poor performance: registering and publishing protocols a priori, justifying study design selection, providing a list of excluded studies, and reporting funding sources of primary studies. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13195-022-01100-w. BioMed Central 2022-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9617345/ /pubmed/36309725 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13195-022-01100-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Zhong, Claire C. W.
Zhao, Jinglun
Wong, Charlene H. L.
Wu, Irene X. Y.
Mao, Chen
Yeung, Jerry W. F.
Chung, Vincent C. H.
Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study
title Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study
title_full Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study
title_fullStr Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study
title_full_unstemmed Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study
title_short Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for Alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study
title_sort methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for alzheimer’s disease: a cross-sectional study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9617345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36309725
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13195-022-01100-w
work_keys_str_mv AT zhongclairecw methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsontreatmentsforalzheimersdiseaseacrosssectionalstudy
AT zhaojinglun methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsontreatmentsforalzheimersdiseaseacrosssectionalstudy
AT wongcharlenehl methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsontreatmentsforalzheimersdiseaseacrosssectionalstudy
AT wuirenexy methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsontreatmentsforalzheimersdiseaseacrosssectionalstudy
AT maochen methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsontreatmentsforalzheimersdiseaseacrosssectionalstudy
AT yeungjerrywf methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsontreatmentsforalzheimersdiseaseacrosssectionalstudy
AT chungvincentch methodologicalqualityofsystematicreviewsontreatmentsforalzheimersdiseaseacrosssectionalstudy