- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
- 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 |