- Framework of problems / Rigorous
- Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
- 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 |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 2 |
| 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. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | N/A |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |