Applicability and generalisability of the results of systematic reviews to public health practice and policy: a systematic review

Ref ID 15
First Author N. Ahmad
Journal TRIALS [ELECTRONIC RESOURCE]
Year Of Publishing 2010
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838881/pdf/1745-6215-11-20.pdf
Keywords • Public health
• External validity
• Equity
• Cochrane
• Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s) • Ignores setting or context of included studies which limits review applicability
• Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently
• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
• Failure to consider equity, different socioeconomic groups or disadvantaged populations
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country France
Aim To assess systematic reviews of research into two public health priorities (tobacco consumption and HIV infection) in terms applicability or external validity of trial results from reviews published in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews and in journals indexed in MEDLINE between January 1997 and December 2007.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings There was a lack of consideration of applicability of results in the 98 included systematic reviews of tobacco consumption and HIV infection. The setting of the individual studies was reported in 45 (46%) of the systematic reviews, the number of centres in 21 (21%), and the country where the trial took place in 62 (63%). Inclusion and exclusion criteria of the included studies were reported in 16 (16%) and 13 (13%) of the reviews, respectively. Baseline characteristics of participants in the included studies were described in 59 (60%) of the reviews. These characteristics concerned age in about half of the reviews, sex in 46 (47%), and ethnicity in 9 (9%). Applicability of results was discussed in 13 (13%) of the systematic reviews. The reporting was better in systematic reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration than by non-Cochrane groups.
Number of systematic reviews included 98
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 608
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description