- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality
- 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 |