| Ref ID | 147 |
| First Author | S. V. Katikireddi |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY & COMMUNITY HEALTH |
| Year Of Publishing | 2015 |
| URL | https://jech.bmj.com/content/jech/69/2/189.full.pdf |
| Keywords |
• General medical • Risk of bias • Cochrane |
| Problem(s) |
• Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality • Flawed risk of bias undertaken • Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To assess if and how critical appraisals inform the synthesis and interpretation of evidence in from systematic reviews published in 14 high-ranked journals and the Cochrane library between March -May 2012. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Almost half of the 59 included systematic reviews reported critical appraisal in a manner that did not allow readers to determine which studies included in a review were most robust. Risk of bias assessments were not incorporated into synthesis in one-third (20) of the SRs, with their consideration more likely when reviews focused on randomised controlled trials. Common methods for incorporating critical appraisals into the synthesis process were sensitivity analysis, narrative discussion and exclusion of studies at high risk of bias. Nearly half of the reviews which investigated multiple outcomes and carried out study-level risk of bias summaries did not consider the potential for risk of bias to vary across outcomes. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 59 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 59 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |