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