| Ref ID | 517 |
| First Author | E. von Elm |
| Journal | JAMA |
| Year Of Publishing | 2004 |
| URL | https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/198260/joc31171.pdf |
| Keywords |
• Transparency • Pain • Error |
| Problem(s) |
• Data extraction errors and double counting |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Switzerland |
| Aim | To assess patterns of duplication in included studies in systematic reviews of analgesia published between 1989 and 2002. The authors focus on reviews where the systematic review authors identify duplicate publications within their reviews themselves. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Authors of 40% of 141 systematic reviews acknowledged identification of duplicates. Data from 60 articles were published twice, data from 13 articles were published three times, data from 3 article were published four times, and data from 2 articles were published five times. 63% of the duplicates had no cross-reference at all, indicating a high level of covert duplication. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 141 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 141 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |