- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
- 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 |