| Ref ID | 381 |
| First Author | C. H. van den Ende |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2006 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(06)00059-X/fulltext |
| Keywords |
• Physiotherapy • Low reporting quality • Multiplicity • Cochrane • Heterogeneity • Pre-specification |
| Problem(s) |
• Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity • Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting • Poor execution of narrative synthesis • Intervention not described / defined |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | The Netherlands |
| Aim | To assess methods to deal with the clinical heterogeneity of interventions and multiple outcome measures used in Cochrane reviews on physiotherapy and occupational therapy published up to 2004. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | In 58% of included reviews, more than one intervention was evaluated. In 52% of the reviews no quantitative data synthesis was performed, and in 33% reviews neither quantitative nor qualitative synthesis was performed. The reasons for not conducting a quantitative data synthesis were clinical and/or statistical heterogeneity; insufficient data reported; too few included studies; and other methodologic reasons. In 21% of studies a qualitative data synthesis was performed, using five different methods. In many reviews outcomes such as ‘‘functional ability’’ or ‘‘pain’’ were not restricted to specific instruments, which meant that a large number of instruments were investigated. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 52 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 189 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |