A case study of binary outcome data extraction across three systematic reviews of hip arthroplasty: errors and differences of selection

Ref ID 256
First Author C. Carroll
Year Of Publishing 2013
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24344873/
Keywords Surgery
Single reviewer
Problem(s) Single reviewer / lack of double checking
Data extraction errors and double counting
Number of systematic reviews included 3
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.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? No
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes