- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
- Eight Out of Every Ten Abstracts of Low Back Pain Systematic Reviews Presented Spin and Inconsistencies With the Full Text: An Analysis of 66 Systematic Reviews
| Ref ID | 278 |
| First Author | D. P. Nascimento |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC & SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2020 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31443622/ |
| Keywords |
Cochrane Abstract / summary Pain Error Spin Physiotherapy Non-Cochrane reviews |
| Problem(s) |
Errors in systematic review abstracts or plain language summaries Spin or subjective interpretation of findings Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 66 |
| Summary of Findings | From the 66 included (9 Cochrane and 57 Non-Cochrane) systematic reviews of low back pain, spin was determined as present in 80% of abstracts using a 7-item checklist and kappa coefficient analysis. Non-Cochrane review abstracts were not consistent with the main text but Cochrane reviews had good consistency. AMSTAR2 was critically low for 76% (n=56) reviews and Cochrane reviews had higher quality rating than non-Cochrane reviews. However, Cochrane reviews that were republished in other journals had lower AMSTAR2 rating scores and presented examples of spin in the abstracts that were not present in the corresponding Cochrane review abstract. |
| 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? | No |