|BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
|Year Of Publishing
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
|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?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?