| 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 |
• Reproducibility • General medical • Cochrane • Non-Cochrane reviews |
| Problem(s) |
• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews • Methods not described to enable replication |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Australia |
| Aim | To assess how often reproducible research practices are used in systematic reviews of biomedical research from a sample of systematic reviews published in MEDLINE in 2014. The association of the use of reproducible research practices with being a Cochrane review, or use of the PRISMA statement was also assessed. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 110 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 110 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |