| Ref ID | 293 |
| First Author | J. Higgins |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH & POLICY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2002 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11822262/ |
| Keywords |
• Heterogeneity • Pre-specification • General medical • Subgroup |
| Problem(s) |
• Unplanned or unjustified subgroup or sensitivity analyses • Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To compare published protocols with all corresponding completed systematic reviews available in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The authors also examined key systematic review guidance to assess adequacy of advice on methods to authors. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Plans for addressing heterogeneity between studies in systematic review protocols were seldom followed in the 39 Cochrane reviews examined. Fifteen of the 28 protocols pre-specified potential effect modifiers for use in subgroup analyses or meta-regression. Just two reviews performed only subgroup analyses that had been pre-specified in the protocol. Ten reviews did not undertake any of the planned subgroup analyses or meta-regressions, and in four further reviews at least one planned subgroup analysis was not undertaken. Ten reviews undertook subgroup analyses that were not mentioned in the protocol. Eight of the 11 reviews without protocols undertook subgroup analyses; it was not possible to determine whether these had been prespecified. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 39 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 39 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |