- 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
|EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY
|Year Of Publishing
Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews
|Number of systematic reviews included
|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?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?