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

Ref ID 137
First Author J. Feldmann
Journal BMJ OPEN
Year Of Publishing 2019
Keywords Cochrane
General medical
Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s) Lack of clinical expert/ stakeholder/ user perspective
Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews
Number of systematic reviews included 60
Summary of Findings 30 Cochrane reviews and 30 non-Cochrane systematic reviews published between January 2011 and October 2015 were included. Rapid reviews were also included but are not discussed here. Stakeholder involvement was documented in 13% (4/30) of Cochrane reviews and 20% (6/30) of non-Cochrane reviews. Cochrane reviews had higher median AMSTAR scores (11, range 7-11) than non-Cochrane reviews (7, range 3-11). All 30 Cochrane systematic reviews (100%) mentioned a pre-existing review protocol, whereas only 59% of non-Cochrane systematic reviews clarified whether there was a protocol or not. Similarly, all 30 Cochrane systematic reviews included a conflict of interest statement, whereas 40% of non-Cochrane systematic reviews lacked such a paragraph.
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