• Incorrect interpretation or statistical inference error from meta-analysis
Article Type
Editorial
Article Subtype
Discussion piece
First Author Country
United Kingdom
Aim
To highlight that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and to assess the prevalence of claims of "no effect" or "no difference" in abstracts of systematic reviews published in issue 1 & 2, 2001 - 2002, in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Level of Investigation
Descriptive
Summary of Findings
Inappropriate claims of no effect or difference were made in 22.5% abstracts published in 2001 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and in 13.3% abstracts first published in 2002.
Number of systematic reviews included
989
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed
989
Treatment impacted
No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted
Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description
Does the article have a publicly available protocol?
Not Applicable
Did the review team include both methodological and clinical experts?
Not Applicable
Sampling strategy for obtaining the systematic reviews under assessment
Consecutive
Was the sample size of systematic reviews subject to any formal sample size or power calculation?
No
Were any or all of the study selection and data extraction performed in duplicate?
Yes
Were any statistical adjustments made to correct for confounding?
Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?
