Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

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
Number of systematic reviews included	86
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.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes