| Ref ID | 543 |
| First Author | G. Imberger |
| Journal | PLOS ONE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2011 |
| URL | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028422 |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • Multiplicity • Pain • Subgroup |
| Problem(s) |
• Unplanned or unjustified subgroup or sensitivity analyses • Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Denmark |
| Aim | To assess the quantity of statistical multiplicity (the number of statistical tests conducted) present in a population of systematic reviews of anaesthesia and whether this quantity is different in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | The median number of tests done in each included systematic review was 12 in Cochrane reviews and 8 in non-Cochrane reviews. Primary outcomes were clearly defined in 63% (27/43) of the Cochrane reviews and 51% of the non-Cochrane reviews. The proportion that used an assessment of risk of bias as a reason for doing extra analyses was 42% in Cochrane and 28% in non-Cochrane reviews. The issue of multiplicity was addressed in 6% of all the reviews. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 86 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 86 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |