The art and science of study identification: a comparative analysis of two systematic reviews

Ref ID 451
First Author L. Rosen
Year Of Publishing 2016
Keywords Author
Missing data
Public health
Overlapping reviews/redundancy
Problem(s) Errors in study inclusion or omission of relevant studies
Spin or subjective interpretation of findings
Following guidelines is no guarantee of a rigorous systematic review
Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
Number of systematic reviews included 2
Summary of Findings Both reviews performed well on methodological (AMSTAR) quality. Review conclusions differed for both primary and subgroup analyses and could be considered as discordant. Reasons included: differing inclusion criteria, omission of relevant studies, measurement of outcomes, differing requirements for quantitative data, and search issues, including how and which sources were searched. A minority of omissions resulted from discordant reviewer interpretations of identical inclusion criteria.
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