How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine

Ref ID	184
First Author	K. Linde
Journal	JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE
Year Of Publishing	2003
URL	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539366/pdf/0960017.pdf
Keywords	Reproducibility Error Complimentary & Alternative Spin
Problem(s)	Spin or subjective interpretation of findings Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis Methods not described to enable replication
Number of systematic reviews included	17
Summary of Findings	From a total of seventeen review sets consisting of 2–5 overviews addressing the same topics, the sample of primary studies varied by more than 25% in fifteen review sets, and by more than 50% in ten. The most common reason for discrepancies regarding the sample of included studies was differences in inclusion criteria. The authors highlight that for the general reader it is almost impossible to know which differences are relevant. Searches in Medline were sometimes described in sufficient detail to allow a comparison. Instead of or in addition to meta-analysis, results of primary studies were summarized descriptively or in vote counts.
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