- Framework of problems / Objective
- Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
- High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine
| Ref ID | 287 |
| First Author | A. Conway |
| Journal | EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2017 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5680988/pdf/ejanet-34-808.pdf |
| Keywords |
Cochrane Pain Certainty |
| Problem(s) |
Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 159 |
| Summary of Findings | 65% of included reviews used the GRADE system to evaluate the quality [certainty] of evidence. 47% of included reviews were assessed as making a conclusive statement about the effects of an intervention. The likelihood that a review was conclusive increased with the number of studies it included and its quality of evidence for the primary outcome. |
| 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? | Yes |