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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes