- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Incorrect interpretation or statistical inference error from meta-analysis
- Claims of ‘no difference’or ‘no effect’in Cochrane and other systematic reviews
| Ref ID | 521 |
| First Author | P. R. M. Smith |
| Journal | BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2020 |
| URL | https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/03/10/bmjebm-2019-111257 |
| Keywords |
Cochrane Author Inference General medical |
| Problem(s) |
Incorrect interpretation or statistical inference error from meta-analysis |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 678 |
| Summary of Findings | 'No difference/no effect' was incorrectly claimed in the abstracts of 7.8% Cochrane reviews and in the abstracts of 6.0% other systematic reviews. Incorrect claims of no difference/no effect of treatments were substantially less common in Cochrane reviews published in in 2017 than they were in a study of abstracts of reviews published in 2001/2002 (Alderson P, Chalmers I. Survey of claims of no effect in Abstracts of Cochrane reviews. BMJ 2003;326:475–6). |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Yes |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | No |