- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Data extraction errors and double counting
- High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews
| Ref ID | 495 |
| First Author | A. P. Jones |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2005 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(05)00047-8/fulltext |
| Keywords |
Cochrane Error Endocrinology |
| Problem(s) |
Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews Data extraction errors and double counting |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 34 |
| Summary of Findings | Errors related to data extraction and calculations were found in 59% of reviews. Errors did not lead to substantial changes in any conclusion. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | No |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | No |