Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews

MECIR guidelines facilitate good practice in systematic reviews which may explain why Cochrane reviews have frequently been found to be of higher quality than non-systematic reviews. Some journals may accept systematic reviews for publication which have not adhered to good guidelines for reporting and methodological conduct.

Articles that support this problem:

Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?

2013 : The european journal of orthodontics

A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer

2018 : Bmj open

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination

2014 : Vaccine

Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study

2009 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Discrepancies in meta-analyses answering the same clinical question were hard to explain: a meta-epidemiological study

2020 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy

2009 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Nature and reporting characteristics of UK health technology assessment systematic reviews

2018 : Bmc medical research methodology

Comparison of methodological quality rating of systematic reviews on neuropathic pain using AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR

2018 : Bmc med res methodol

Search strategies in systematic reviews in periodontology and implant dentistry

2013 : Journal of clinical periodontology

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis on Asthma Treatments. A Cross-Sectional Study

2020 : Annals of the american thoracic society

Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evaluation of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in High-Impact Factor Journals

2020 : Clinical chemistry

Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions

2018 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies

2012 : Human reproduction

Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey

2015 : Bmj open

Characteristics of stakeholder involvement in systematic and rapid reviews: a methodological review in the area of health services research

2019 : Bmj open

Incorporation of assessments of risk of bias of primary studies in systematic reviews of randomised trials: a cross-sectional study

2013 : Bmj open

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on interventions for osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study

2020 : Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease

Applicability and generalisability of the results of systematic reviews to public health practice and policy: a systematic review

2010 : Trials [electronic resource]

Appraising the Quality of Systematic Reviews for Age-Related Macular Degeneration Interventions: A Systematic Review

2018 : Jama ophthalmology

Eight Out of Every Ten Abstracts of Low Back Pain Systematic Reviews Presented Spin and Inconsistencies With the Full Text: An Analysis of 66 Systematic Reviews

2020 : Journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy

Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009

2020 : Systematic reviews

Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and non‐Cochrane systematic reviews: A case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain

2019 : Research synthesis methods

Use and reporting of risk of bias tools in 825 systematic reviews of acupuncture: a cross-sectional study

2021 : Acupuncture in medicine

Reporting and Handling of Missing Participant Data in Systematic Reviews of Kidney Transplant Studies

2021 : Transplantation

An Analysis of the Evidence Underpinning the American Urologic Association Clinical Practice Guidelines

2022 : Urology

Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

2021 : Bmc medical research methodology

Analysis of Systematic Reviews in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancer

2022 : Laryngoscope

Restrictions and their reporting in systematic reviews of effectiveness: an observational study

2022 : Bmc medical research methodology