- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Methods not described to enable replication
- 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 |
• 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 |
| 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? | N/A |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |