| 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 |
• Pulmonology • Pre-specification • Spin • 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 |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Malta |
| Aim | To assess reasons for disagreements in multiple systematic reviews of the benefit-to-harm ratio of thrombolytic therapy in patients with intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism published in multiple databases up to 2016. Pooled risk ratios and absolute risk difference, for all-cause mortality, recurrent pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding were recalculated. |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 12 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 1847 |