Forest plots in reports of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study reviewing current practice

Ref ID 497
First Author D. L. Schriger
Journal INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2010
URL https://watermark.silverchair.com/dyp370.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAq8wggKrBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggKcMIICmAIBADCCApEGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMdRQxSX0uI70J_vFHAgEQgIICYlY4EwUXWyiW0RyZduQGgTsRV-4yfIfYcMit7sACfTgg45sHdumi0eR6zmOcmtHY-bamkBqRbmh3Qo7-pLVlRtqEajKbT3i_Nv1a4GPjIT3Ao32hM3cFXt6V_oqlKP7tBOvL654KHhdhPtkWPLJ8y5SujGTzWFOyyVlxJ7RRS4PRzskwTIdTQZQ7J84-cA-sb_BeMZSpGwLR0Sj-UOn4dO1KLF3djh0DGMIa4bFk_NWEA-7GuK-OI4hvZbiUg2DLTJ8vRCSGKHVCUMWHBWvlXvOkQik50ZsbnhBQ1aU_64xPaFG6PpwqtmBhOSlzqk0MreXqRVOWkl35mBQUyHAHGv33MOUqCFYRRfXI0HEcc7sbTWPH18FUFxE4TFQT9jBFGm8XiMAXGmNua_Ri-KgxvR233m44x2pgo112pAtGAs8KmfyBEg-QWdPAVXD8bJU1OJ7wUVioFRPSr31ZMZTNEJBjRw0VnU9mv3_IxNk-7a3vaSq0tU0_IdKjcHn4C0QOZ9dmaO-1RE4xfzBJg33icrqT8IhsjIcG85cQQK7tQYyRGyc_ohVm8K7QEaS8H8PFtWGS3E812jM7EJo1xasUyEDSUvWD2XVUNtaBOvRKI0nzKDcolZyt8-wWHwBSdUfy1cGXyL3DFprox0Cv3GZnkZ0YZiMsmdh71W_S4vB1CHvCkFO2Mi8slLFJVFNusuHaH_7PCkH1Mt0bSgB9peXgcSaTf3GnZZb7R1tFCNTu1pWE3P5VsCwGnokstbsBPmSigYhzrlRg89h3xKC-uY-r9x4sy-r2WfO65WJg8soGH-FSCq4
Keywords Cochrane
Statistical
Risk of bias
General medical
Problem(s) Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality
Number of systematic reviews included 300
Summary of Findings All Cochrane reviews had forest plots, but 10% contained no data and 80% had 3 or fewer studies; 10% had no studies). Plots with 0 or 1 studies serve little purpose other than to convey that more research is needed. Conversely 84% of non-Cochrane reviews did not contain even one forest plot. Only 3% of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews presented funnel plots. All Cochrane review plots and 44% of non-Cochrane review plots presented studies in either alphabetical order or some other order that had little potential for illuminating the meaning of the data.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No