Search

Background: While systematic reviews (SR) generally suggest that vaccination is an effective way to prevent influenza infection, it is not clear if these conclusions are based on high quality SR methods. As such, we systematically identified, critically appraised, and summarised the characteristics and adherence to methodological standards in SRs with meta-analysis of efficacy/effectiveness of influenza vaccines., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Global Health, and CDSR for English-language SR publications up to July 11, 2022. We summarised the characteristics, adherence to methodological standards and SR quality (AMSTAR 2)., Results: From 11,193 retrieved citations, we included 48 publications (47 SRs). Seventy-five percent were of a critically low quality, 19% of a low quality, 2% of a moderate quality, and 4% of a high quality. Thirteen percent were industry-funded, about 13% co-authored by industry employee(s), and 4% commissioned by an organisation or authority. Only 45% percent reported protocol registration, 6% reported collaboration with a knowledge synthesis librarian/information specialist, and 60% utilised a reporting checklist (e.g. PRISMA)., Conclusions and Relevance: SRs with meta-analysis of efficacy/effectiveness of influenza vaccines are mostly of critically low quality and even the more recent reviews did not follow current best SR practices. These findings are significant in view of the controversies that surround influenza vaccines, and the use of SRs in informed decision-making. However, the findings do not justify curtailment or cessation of influenza vaccine use as vaccines continue to offer substantial net public health benefit.HighlightsWe systematically identified, critically appraised, and summarised the characteristics and adherence to methodological standards in 47 systematic reviews with meta-analysis of efficacy/effectiveness of influenza vaccines.13% of the reviews were industry-funded.About 13% of the reviews were co-authored by industry employee(s).4% of the reviews were commissioned by an organisation/authority.45% of the reviews reported protocol registration.6% of the reviews reported collaborating with a knowledge synthesis librarian/information specialist to prepare the search strategy.60% of the reviews reported using the PRISMA (or similar) checklist.75% of the reviews were judged to be of critically low quality; 19% of low quality; 2% of moderate quality; 4% of high quality.