- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis
- Methodological review showed correct absolute effect size estimates for time-to-event outcomes in less than one-third of cancer-related systematic reviews
Ref ID | 473 |
First Author | N. Skoetz |
Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
Year Of Publishing | 2019 |
URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(18)30530-4/fulltext |
Keywords |
Cochrane Statistical Error Oncology |
Problem(s) |
Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews |
Number of systematic reviews included | 96 |
Summary of Findings | In 29% of included Cochrane reviews, absolute effects in the summary of findings tables were calculated in a correct manner. In 24%, absolute effects had been correctly calculated (e.g., overall survival), but labelled incorrectly in summary of findings tables (e.g., death). 13% of reviews provided incorrect absolute effects in summary of findings tables. For 7%, it was unclear if absolute effects were correctly calculated. In 27% reviews, no absolute effects based on the given hazard ratio were calculated. |
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 |