Gomez-Garcia, FranciscoRuano, JuanAguilar-Luque, MacarenaAlcalde-Mellado, PatriciaGay-Mimbrera, JesusHernandez-Romero, Jose LuisSanz-Cabanillas, Juan LuisMaestre-Lopez, BeatrizGonzalez-Padilla, MarcelinoCarmona-Fernandez, Pedro JGarcia-Nieto, Antonio VelezIsla-Tejera, Beatriz2023-01-252023-01-252017-12-13Gómez-García F, Ruano J, Aguilar-Luque M, Alcalde-Mellado P, Gay-Mimbrera J, Hernández-Romero JL, et al. Abstract analysis method facilitates filtering low-methodological quality and high-bias risk systematic reviews on psoriasis interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Dec 29;17(1):180http://hdl.handle.net/10668/11957Article summaries' information and structure may influence researchers/clinicians' decisions to conduct deeper full-text analyses. Specifically, abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA) should provide structured summaries for quick assessment. This study explored a method for determining the methodological quality and bias risk of full-text reviews using abstract information alone. Systematic literature searches for SRs and/or MA about psoriasis were undertaken on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database. For each review, quality, abstract-reporting completeness, full-text methodological quality, and bias risk were evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A), Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and ROBIS tools, respectively. Article-, author-, and journal-derived metadata were systematically extracted from eligible studies using a piloted template, and explanatory variables concerning abstract-reporting quality were assessed using univariate and multivariate-regression models. Two classification models concerning SRs' methodological quality and bias risk were developed based on per-item and total PRISMA-A scores and decision-tree algorithms. This work was supported, in part, by project ICI1400136 (JR). No funding was received from any pharmaceutical company. This study analysed 139 SRs on psoriasis interventions. On average, they featured 56.7% of PRISMA-A items. The mean total PRISMA-A score was significantly higher for high-methodological-quality SRs than for moderate- and low-methodological-quality reviews. SRs with low-bias risk showed higher total PRISMA-A values than reviews with high-bias risk. In the final model, only 'authors per review > 6' (OR: 1.098; 95%CI: 1.012-1.194), 'academic source of funding' (OR: 3.630; 95%CI: 1.788-7.542), and 'PRISMA-endorsed journal' (OR: 4.370; 95%CI: 1.785-10.98) predicted PRISMA-A variability. Reviews with a total PRISMA-A score  6' (OR: 1.098; 95%CI: 1.012-1.194), 'academic source of funding' (OR: 3.630; 95%CI: 1.788-7.542), and 'PRISMA-endorsed journal' (OR: 4.370; 95%CI: 1.785-10.98) predicted PRISMA-A variability. Reviews with a total PRISMA-A score The methodological quality and bias risk of SRs may be determined by abstract's quality and completeness analyses. Our proposal aimed to facilitate synthesis of evidence evaluation by clinical professionals lacking methodological skills. External validation is necessary.enAttribution 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/AMSTARAbstract readabilityDecision treesMethodological qualityPRISMA for abstractsPsoriasisQuality of reportingSystematic reviewAbstracting and indexingBiasHumansMeta-analysis as topicPeriodicals as topicPsoriasisPublishingQuality controlResearch designResearch reportReview literature as topicRisk factorsresearch article29284417open accessControl de calidadEdiciónIndización y redacción de resúmenesInforme de investigaciónLiteratura de revisión como asuntoMetaanálisis como asuntoProyectos de investigaciónPsoriasisPublicaciones periódicas como asunto10.1186/s12874-017-0460-z1471-2288PMC5747101https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0460-zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5747101/pdf