The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews

Ref ID 353
First Author K. Hopayian
Journal BMJ
Year Of Publishing 2001
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121240/pdf/681.pdf
Keywords • Pain
• Risk of bias
Problem(s) • Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data
• Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
Article Type Editorial
Article Subtype Discussion piece
First Author Country United Kingdom
Aim To assess the validity of a small selection of systematic reviews with discordant findings on the same topic, epidural steroid injection therapy for sciatica, published between 1995 and 2001.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings Two systematic reviews (plus one meta-analysis, excluded here) were assessed to be compromised to due to inclusion of studies with atypical populations; using checklists to score study quality; and using inadequate outcome measures.
Number of systematic reviews included 2
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 3
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description