- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data
- 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? | Not Applicable |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |