| Ref ID | 423 |
| First Author | C. Carroll |
| Journal | BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2018 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5941703/pdf/12874_2018_Article_498.pdf |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • General medical • Publication bias • Non-Cochrane reviews |
| Problem(s) |
• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews • Poor consideration of publication bias |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To assess how well reporting standards of systematic reviews produced in a Health Technology Assessment context compare with reporting in Cochrane and other ‘non-Cochrane’ systematic reviews from the same years (2004 and 2014), as reported by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 016;13(5):e1002028). |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | The standard of reporting is often comparable between UK Health Technology Assessment systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews, and the reporting in both is more complete than other non-Cochrane systematic reviews. However, publication bias is almost never taken into account in Health Technology Assessment systematic reviews. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 330 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 462 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |