Related Experiment Videos
Systematic reviews supporting practice guideline recommendations lack protection against bias
Juan P Brito1, Apostolos Tsapas, Marcio L Griebeler
1Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Objective:
To evaluate the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) affecting clinical practice in endocrinology.
Study Design And Setting:
We identified all SRs cited in The Endocrine Society's Clinical Practice Guidelines published between 2006 and January 2012. We evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of the SRs in duplicate using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. We also noted if the guidelines recommendations that are clearly supported by SRs acknowledged their quality.
Results:
During the 5-year period of study, endocrine guidelines cited 69 SRs. These SRs had a mean AMSTAR score of 6.4 (standard deviation, 2.5) of a maximum score of 11, with scores improving over time. SRs of randomized trials had higher AMSTAR scores than those of observational studies. Low-quality SRs (methodological AMSTAR score 1 or 2 of 5, n = 24, 35%) were cited in 24 different recommendations and were the main evidentiary support for five recommendations, of which only one acknowledged the quality of SRs.
Conclusion:
Few recommendations in endocrinology are supported by SRs. The quality of SRs is suboptimal and is not acknowledged by guideline developers.
Related Concept Videos
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Blind Procedures
Blinding
Confirmation Biases