| Ref ID | 256 |
| First Author | C. Carroll |
| Journal | BMC RESEARCH NOTES |
| Year Of Publishing | 2013 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24344873/ |
| Keywords |
• Surgery • Inference • Error • Single reviewer |
| Problem(s) |
• Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Data extraction errors and double counting |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Small analytical study |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To assess differences in the binary event data extracted and analysed by three systematic reviews on the same topic: a comparison of total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| Summary of Findings | Assessment of differences in the binary event data extracted and analysed by three systematic reviews of total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty found differences in selection accounted for between 8% and 42% of the data differences between reviews. Errors in data extraction accounted for between 8% and 17% of the differences. These differences did lead to small differences in meta-analysed relative risks between the two treatments in the three reviews, but none was significant. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 3 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 3 |