False-positive findings in Cochrane meta-analyses with and without application of trial sequential analysis: an empirical review

Ref ID 134
First Author G. Imberger
Journal BMJ OPEN
Year Of Publishing 2016
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4985805/pdf/bmjopen-2016-011890.pdf
Keywords Cochrane
General medical
Problem(s) Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data
Small number of trials in meta-analyses
Number of systematic reviews included 100
Summary of Findings Using conventional cumulative meta-analysis, false positives were present in seven of the 100 included meta-analyses (7%, 95% CI 3% to 14%), occurring more than once in three. The total number of false positives was 14 and trial sequential analysis prevented 13 of these (93%, 95% CI 68% to 98%). In a post hoc analysis, the authors found that Cochrane meta-analyses that are negative are 1.67 times more likely to be updated (95% CI 0.92 to 2.68) than those that are positive.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Yes
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes