Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32939412›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2020

The methodological quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement according to AMSTAR 2: A cross-sectional study.

Katja Matthias, Olesja Rissling, Dawid Pieper, Johannes Morche, Marc Nocon, Anja Jacobs, Uta Wegewitz, Jaqueline Schirm, Robert C Lorenz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. The Detransition Rate Is Unknown.Archives of sexual behavior · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Katja MatthiasFederal Joint Committee (Healthcare), Gutenbergstraße 13, 10587 Berlin, Germany.
Olesja RisslingFederal Joint Committee (Healthcare), Gutenbergstraße 13, 10587 Berlin, Germany.
Dawid PieperWitten/Herdecke University, School of Health, IFOM - Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany.
Johannes MorcheFederal Joint Committee (Healthcare), Gutenbergstraße 13, 10587 Berlin, Germany.
Marc NoconFederal Joint Committee (Healthcare), Gutenbergstraße 13, 10587 Berlin, Germany.
Anja JacobsFederal Joint Committee (Healthcare), Gutenbergstraße 13, 10587 Berlin, Germany.
Uta WegewitzFederal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Nöldnerstr. 40-42, 10317 Berlin, Germany.
Jaqueline SchirmFederal Joint Committee (Healthcare), Gutenbergstraße 13, 10587 Berlin, Germany.
Robert C LorenzFederal Joint Committee (Healthcare), Gutenbergstraße 13, 10587 Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral standards have been developed to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). One widely used tool is the AMSTAR. A recent update - AMSTAR 2 - is a 16 item evaluation tool that enables a detailed assessment of SR that include randomised (RCT) or non-randomised studies (NRS) of healthcare interventions.

methodsA cross-sectional study of SR on pharmacological or psychological interventions in major depression in adults was conducted. SR published during 2012-2017 were sampled from MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of SR. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Potential predictive factors associated with quality were examined.

resultsIn rating overall confidence in the results of 60 SR four reviews were rated "high", two were "moderate", one was "low" and 53 were "critically low". The mean AMSTAR 2 percentage score was 45.3% (standard deviation 22.6%) in a wide range from 7.1% to 93.8%. Predictors of higher quality were: type of review (higher quality in Cochrane Reviews), SR including only randomized trials and higher journal impact factor. LIMITATIONS: AMSTAR 2 is not intended to be used for the generation of a percentage score.

conclusionsAccording to AMSTAR 2 the overall methodological quality of SR on the treatment of adult major depression needs improvement. Although there is a high need for summarized information in the field of mental health, this work demonstrates the need to critically assess SR before using their findings. Better adherence to established reporting guidelines for SR is needed.

Indexed as

AMSTAR 2DepressionEpidemiologyEvidence-based medicineMajor depressionMethodological qualityPsychiatryPublic healthRisk of biasSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32939412
PMCPMC7479282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.