- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
- The art and science of study identification: a comparative analysis of two systematic reviews
| Ref ID | 451 |
| First Author | L. Rosen |
| Journal | BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2016 |
| URL | https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12874-016-0118-2.pdf |
| Keywords |
Author Missing data Allegiance Spin 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 |