- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
- (Meta) analyze this: systematic reviews might lose credibility
| Ref ID | 295 |
| First Author | P. Humaidan |
| Journal | NATURE MEDICINE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2012 |
| URL | https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0912-1321.pdf |
| Keywords |
General medical Overlapping reviews/redundancy |
| Problem(s) |
Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 61 |
| Summary of Findings | The authors highlight that a search in PubMed for articles published in July 2012 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the largest registry of systematic reviews found that, among the 61 systematic reviews published during this one month, 15% of the reviews included one or zero trials, the latter stating the lack of data necessary to do the analysis. In addition, half of the systematic reviews in the issue included fewer than 1,000 randomized patients. Furthermore, half of those published in the July issue were updated reviews, previously published between 2000 and 2012. Interestingly, 11 of these 31 updated reviews included the same number of trials and participants as the previous review they sought to bring up to date. |
| 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? |