Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Systematic reviews (SRs) could offer the best evidence supporting interventions, but methodological flaws limit their trustworthiness in decision-making. This cross-sectional study appraised the methodological quality of SRs on atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments.
UNASSIGNED: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Database for SRs on AD treatments published in 2019-2022. We extracted SRs\' bibliographical data and appraised SRs\' methodological quality with AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2. We explored associations between methodological quality and bibliographical characteristics.
UNASSIGNED: Among the 52 appraised SRs, only one (1.9%) had high methodological quality, while 45 (86.5%) critically low. For critical domains, only five (9.6%) employed comprehensive search strategy, seven (13.5%) provided list of excluded studies, 17 (32.7%) considered risk of bias in primary studies, 21 (40.4%) contained registered protocol, and 24 (46.2%) investigated publication bias. Cochrane reviews, SR updates, SRs with European corresponding authors, and SRs funded by European institutions had better overall quality. Impact factor and author number positively associated with overall quality.
UNASSIGNED: Methodological quality of SRs on AD treatments is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should improve the above critical methodological aspects. Resources should be devolved into upscaling evidence synthesis infrastructure and improving critical appraisal skills of evidence users.
UNASSIGNED: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Database for SRs on AD treatments published in 2019-2022. We extracted SRs\' bibliographical data and appraised SRs\' methodological quality with AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2. We explored associations between methodological quality and bibliographical characteristics.
UNASSIGNED: Among the 52 appraised SRs, only one (1.9%) had high methodological quality, while 45 (86.5%) critically low. For critical domains, only five (9.6%) employed comprehensive search strategy, seven (13.5%) provided list of excluded studies, 17 (32.7%) considered risk of bias in primary studies, 21 (40.4%) contained registered protocol, and 24 (46.2%) investigated publication bias. Cochrane reviews, SR updates, SRs with European corresponding authors, and SRs funded by European institutions had better overall quality. Impact factor and author number positively associated with overall quality.
UNASSIGNED: Methodological quality of SRs on AD treatments is unsatisfactory. Future reviewers should improve the above critical methodological aspects. Resources should be devolved into upscaling evidence synthesis infrastructure and improving critical appraisal skills of evidence users.
摘要：
■系统评价（SRs）可以提供支持干预措施的最佳证据，但是方法论上的缺陷限制了他们在决策中的可信度。这项横断面研究评估了SRs在特应性皮炎（AD）治疗中的方法学质量。
■我们搜索了MEDLINE,EMBASE,PsycINFO,和Cochrane数据库在2019-2022年发布的AD治疗SRs。我们使用AMSTAR（评估系统评论的计量工具）2提取了SRs的书目数据并评估了SRs的方法学质量。我们探讨了方法学质量与书目特征之间的关联。
■在52个评估的SR中，只有一个(1.9%)具有较高的方法学质量，而45（86.5%）极低。对于关键域，只有5人(9.6%)采用综合搜索策略，七项(13.5%)提供了排除研究的清单，17（32.7%）在初级研究中考虑了偏倚风险，21(40.4%)包含注册协议，24人(46.2%)调查了发表偏倚。Cochrane评论，SR更新，SRs与欧洲通讯作者，由欧洲机构资助的SRs具有更好的整体质量。影响因子和作者数与综合素质呈正相关。
■SR对AD治疗的方法学质量不令人满意。未来的审稿人应改进上述关键方法方面。资源应下放给扩大证据综合基础设施和提高证据使用者的关键评估技能。
■我们搜索了MEDLINE,EMBASE,PsycINFO,和Cochrane数据库在2019-2022年发布的AD治疗SRs。我们使用AMSTAR（评估系统评论的计量工具）2提取了SRs的书目数据并评估了SRs的方法学质量。我们探讨了方法学质量与书目特征之间的关联。
■在52个评估的SR中，只有一个(1.9%)具有较高的方法学质量，而45（86.5%）极低。对于关键域，只有5人(9.6%)采用综合搜索策略，七项(13.5%)提供了排除研究的清单，17（32.7%）在初级研究中考虑了偏倚风险，21(40.4%)包含注册协议，24人(46.2%)调查了发表偏倚。Cochrane评论，SR更新，SRs与欧洲通讯作者，由欧洲机构资助的SRs具有更好的整体质量。影响因子和作者数与综合素质呈正相关。
■SR对AD治疗的方法学质量不令人满意。未来的审稿人应改进上述关键方法方面。资源应下放给扩大证据综合基础设施和提高证据使用者的关键评估技能。
