Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions

Ref ID 407
First Author M. J. Page
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2018
URL https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(17)30535-8/fulltext
Keywords Cochrane
Reproducibility
General medical
Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s) Methods not described to enable replication
Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
Number of systematic reviews included 110
Summary of Findings 73% of systematic reviews were reported in sufficient detail to recreate them. Only 65% of systematic reviews reported the data needed to recreate all meta-analytic effect estimates, including subgroup meta-analytic effects and sensitivity analyses. Reproducible research practices were observed more often in Cochrane systematic reviews compared with non-Cochrane systematic reviews.
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