ReviewBrain and behavior2024
A Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-Analyses on Sleep Disorder Treatments Using AMSTAR 2.
Review in Brain and behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of Robotic Devices in Upper Limb Rehabilitation for Adult Stroke Patients: Protocol for an Umbrella Review.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Characteristics and correlations of sleep disorders in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis in China: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeta-analyses (MAs) provide up-to-date, quantified evidence on treatment effects, which may be useful for clinical and policy decision-making. However, the quality of MAs varies, and methodological flaws can limit their reliability.
aimsThis review evaluated the methodological quality of MAs on sleep disorder treatments.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for eligible MAs on randomized controlled trials of sleep disorder treatments published between 2018 and 2023. We extracted MAs' bibliographical characteristics with a predesigned form and appraised their methodological quality using AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) 2. We explored the associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings using Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. RESULTS/OUTCOMES: Among the 104 MAs, the majority (n = 82; 78.9%) had critically low quality, 19 (18.3%) had low quality, and only 3 (2.9%) had high quality. Regarding AMSTAR 2 critical domains, 97 (93.3%) MAs did not provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions, 75 (72.1%) did not use a comprehensive literature search strategy, and 56 (53.9%) lacked a registered protocol and did not justify protocol deviations. Cochrane reviews (p = 0.018), MAs with European corresponding authors (p < 0.001), and MAs receiving European funding (p < 0.001) performed better than their counterparts. CONCLUSIONS/
interpretationThe methodological quality of recent MAs on sleep disorder treatments is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should address the identified critical methodological issues. In addition, substantial resources and funding should be allocated to support training in evidence synthesis and critical appraisal for researchers and clinicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.