| Ref ID | 427 |
| First Author | F. A. Goodyear-Smith |
| Journal | BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2012 |
| URL | https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-12-76 |
| Keywords |
• Mental health • Error • Missing data • Spin • Author • Influence |
| Problem(s) |
• Errors in study inclusion or omission of relevant studies • Spin or subjective interpretation of findings |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Small analytical study |
| First Author Country | New Zealand |
| Aim | To assess the conduct of systematic reviews of effectiveness of screening for depression from two author groups (Cochrane 2005 and the US Preventative Task Force 2002) which consistently reached completely opposite conclusions. |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| Summary of Findings | The opposing recommendations of the two reviews were largely determined by inclusion/exclusion of one study with a high weighting which shifts the treatment effect. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 2 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 5 |
| Treatment impacted | Yes |
| Treatment impacted description | The review is essentially replicated to retrieve all included studies for the review question and then references are checked between the two reviews to examine the discrepancies in conclusions |
| Interpretation impacted | Yes |
| Interpretation impacted description | Study highlights that "the authors may have a belief of what the outcome of their meta-analysis will be before they start, and that this belief may guide choices that are made on the way which may impact the review's results. This is a form of confirmation bias." |