| 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 |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Germany |
| Aim | To assess how many cancer-related Cochrane reviews hazard ratio-based absolute effects in summary of findings tables have been correctly calculated and reported published between January 2011 and December 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 96 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 483 |
| Treatment impacted | Yes |
| Treatment impacted description | The authors examine whether data on the treatment effect are accurately calcuated and reported in the summary of findings tables of Cochrane reviews. |
| Interpretation impacted | Yes |
| Interpretation impacted description | In less than one-third of cancer-related Cochrane reviews, absolute effect size estimates were correctly calculated and reported indicating that erroneous interpretations about treatment effects could be made from two thirds of reviews examined. |