- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
- Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies
Ref ID | 151 |
First Author | B. Windsor |
Journal | HUMAN REPRODUCTION |
Year Of Publishing | 2012 |
URL | https://watermark.silverchair.com/des342.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAArswggK3BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKoMIICpAIBADCCAp0GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMbY6i-59e6OShOXJPAgEQgIICbgefev0tp6IYNRifcV5Ot01C-Aw22dJaUV6_xWbaWyNZ1MozOOyfn04c7DD6re7LIhRjtuKc67UFQTiPmlgMxgox_LfEPZDYTllo66LUqX6-YK4PLu53bVGoPwbD9mJ2ykX79UtrXVftOO0QPMOv0Q7m8lsnT9qiwIO5TQOqs35BL7rov4mJmu294wJxNmV-JDjhSg5u7Kr5Md4VUa8V-6g_u6rdmYSmeSKytlxvTnaLQLt76IWZNxdwHPpO0XlFCvZ8KsfGDFwu3Uw704ByAIt7CzF-L8QFe1-Ikd-Zn0w7xf5b_1JQdw1fYr7o6cYKrI4qW6g2WYsiHcVUZnIqAMnURqMcjS-QITXSxuhU4Hej3xdupyZqoB7rI2skW_v0sSx_jATAktQpgQ3gEzRdLM3YpMw03b8aNg875IX_3_GydHKokn91oSw0ZjPQVKsdStqdkFh5yI1Sd61dmS-SWAccV55RT9TMaPdv-7zToyOctzD2ofZtPXLm66cX7gKZoUgyAQSi06z34tehQqLSBeAO-SIJpp9SCOy-N9SN4wClo7Oy8DUBDGMKYIPzkBjmI1ncDIOMVOl27ueUpKarf3Zi1d3HJAJDstg7doH7j420Zf9I-2m4qQmtpfHQ3g4NBSVsvMaOfzZYuBlw3xo4jaartSjc0SWqJ9O5Co14pYUp_ly42Oz0ZoJ9qBIXW8YPS7pn978kCeWRqB_HkzsviKfc9HBH3d6DgqpNSu6yJmr1Nhrj8eZnRPuErgjDhW8-W_Yg3mFgUcW0vOWEQ5dioI-siV6_gH7Jh1JrY5RaNo9jpygoo1SrbOzvYQ5KpZ8 |
Keywords |
Cochrane Protocols Transparency Publication bias Risk of bias Disclosure Gynaecology Reproductive health Non-Cochrane reviews Low methodological quality Single reviewer |
Problem(s) |
Conflict of interest statement or disclosures for review authors missing Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed No registered or published protocol Single reviewer / lack of double checking Poor consideration of publication bias No quality assessment undertaken or reported Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review |
Number of systematic reviews included | 60 |
Summary of Findings | 30 Cochrane systematic reviews and 30 non-Cochrane systematic reviews of assisted reproductive technologies were included. 10/11 AMSTAR requirements were met in more than 50% of Cochrane reviews, but only 4 of 11 AMSTAR requirements were met in >50% of non-Cochrane reviews. However, remining deficits in Cochrane reviews include: only 67% performing duplicate study selection and data extraction, only 53% conducting assessment for publication bias and only 47% reporting of conflicts of interest. In non-Cochrane reviews the weakest areas were a priori study design (17%), duplicate study selection and data extraction (17%), assessment of study quality (27%), study quality in the formulation of conclusions (23%) and reporting of conflict of interests (10%). |
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 |