RESUMO
Abstract Background Systematic reviews of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are considered high-level evidence to support a decision on therapeutic interventions, and their methodological quality is essential to provide reliable and applicable results. Objective This meta-epidemiological study aimed to map and critically appraise systematic reviews assessing treatments for vesiculobullous skin diseases. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search strategy on MEDLINE (via Pubmed) in December 2022 without restrictions to find systematic reviews evaluating pharmacological interventions for vesiculobullous skin diseases. The methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and additional information was extracted. We identified nine systematic reviews published between 2002 and 2021, seven assessing pemphigus. Results According to the AMSTAR-2 tool, 55.6% were classified as critically low quality, 22.2% as moderate quality, 11.1% as low and 11.1% as high quality. No review assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE); 86% of pemphigus reviews had at least two overlapping RCTs. There were some limitations regarding methodological flaws and the AMSTAR-2 tool use Conclusions These findings reveal a frail methodological quality of systematic reviews about vesiculobullous diseases treatment that may impact the results. Therefore, methodological rigor is mandatory for future systematic reviews to avoid duplication of effort and increase the certainty of the evidence supporting decision-making.
RESUMO
SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of Cochrane systematic reviews and Cochrane systematic reviews protocols using (or planning to use) the risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN: This is a meta-research study. METHODS: We included Cochrane systematic reviews or Cochrane systematic reviews protocols that planned to include randomized clinical trials. We assessed the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and screened for issues published after the launch of risk of bias 2.0 tool (2019-2022). Two independent investigators performed the study selection and data extraction. RESULTS: We analyzed 440 Cochrane systematic reviews and 536 Cochrane systematic reviews protocols. Overall, 4.8% of the Cochrane systematic reviews and 28.5% of the Cochrane systematic reviews protocols used or planned to use risk of bias 2.0 tool. Although low, adherence is increasing over time. In 2019, 0% of Cochrane systematic reviews used risk of bias 2.0 tool, compared to 24.1% in 2022. In Cochrane systematic reviews protocols, adherence increased from 6.9% in 2019 to 41.5% in 2022. A total of 274 (62.1%) Cochrane systematic reviews had their protocols published before 2018; only one used risk of bias 2.0 tool and reported the change of versions in the "Differences between protocol and revision" section. CONCLUSION: The Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool has low adherence among Cochrane protocols and systematic reviews. Further efforts are necessary to facilitate the implementation of this new tool.