- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Unwieldy/ difficult to read
- A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer
| Ref ID | 132 |
| First Author | M. Goldkuhle |
| Journal | BMJ OPEN |
| Year Of Publishing | 2018 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5875625/pdf/bmjopen-2017-020869.pdf |
| Keywords |
Cochrane Oncology Non-Cochrane reviews |
| Problem(s) |
Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews Unwieldy/ difficult to read |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 561 |
| Summary of Findings | 346 Cochrane reviews and 215 non-Cochrane systematic reviews were included. Cochrane reviews consistently met more individual AMSTAR criteria, notably with regard to an a priori design (risk ratio (RR) 3.89; 95% CI 3.10 to 4.88), inclusion of the grey literature and trial registries (RR 3.52; 95% CI 2.84 to 4.37) in their searches, and the reporting of excluded studies (RR 8.80; 95% CI 6.06 to 12.78). Cochrane reviews were less likely to address questions of prognosis (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09), use individual patient data (RR 0.03; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09) or be based on non-randomised controlled trials (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.09). Citation rates of Cochrane reviews were notably lower than those for high-impact journals (Cochrane reviews: mean number of citations 6.52 (range 0–143); high-impact journal systematic reviews: 74.45 (0–652)). The authors highlight that Cochrane reviews are not limited by word count, unlike high-impact journals. This can aid better reporting but Cochrane reviews being longer reports may also contribute to their lower citation rate. |
| 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? | No |