- Framework of problems / Objective
- Inconclusive or lack of recommendations
- Evaluation of 'implications for research' statements in systematic reviews of interventions in advanced cancer patients - a meta-research study
Ref ID | 1059 |
First Author | W. Siemens |
Journal | BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY |
Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
URL | https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-023-02124-y |
Keywords |
Oncology Certainty |
Problem(s) |
Inconclusive or lack of recommendations Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base |
Number of systematic reviews included | 261 |
Summary of Findings | The majority of systematic reviews (88.9%) were not Cochrane Reviews, most of them with a critically low methodological quality according to AMSTAR 2 (88.1%). Systematic reviews with and without an IfR statement were comparable for most characteristics, e.g., patients, control, and primary outcome of review. Concepts underlying GRADE domains to describe the shortcomings of the body of evidence of an outcome were rarely used to derive IfR: ‘risk of bias’ (n = 2, 1.0%), ‘imprecision’ (n = 1, 0.5%), and ‘inconsistency’ (n = 1, 0.5%). |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? |