Multiple overlapping systematic reviews facilitate the origin of disputes: the case of thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism

Ref ID 410
First Author N. Riva
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2018
URL https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(17)31269-6/fulltext
Keywords Spin
Pre-specification
Pulmonology
Overlapping reviews/redundancy
Problem(s) Spin or subjective interpretation of findings
Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes
Number of systematic reviews included 12
Summary of Findings Studies were concordant in reporting that thrombolysis reduced all-cause mortality however discordant results were found for major bleeding, with systematic reviews reporting results in opposite directions. Relevant magnitude of effects and precision for benefits and harms were never prespecified.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Yes
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes