| Ref ID | 588 |
| First Author | C. Hacke |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2020 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(19)30074-5/fulltext |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • Statistical • General medical • Inference • Overlapping reviews/redundancy • Non-Cochrane reviews • Missing data |
| Problem(s) |
• Errors in study inclusion or omission of relevant studies • Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews • Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Meta-epidemiological analysis |
| First Author Country | Germany |
| Aim | To assess quantitative concordance in effect estimates between meta-analyses from 24 Cochrane and 20 non-Cochrane systematic reviews matched on population, intervention, condition, and outcome. To explore reasons for discordances between matched-review conclusions. |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| Summary of Findings | On average, meta-analyses from non-Cochrane reviews reported higher effect estimates compared with meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews answering the same clinical question. Disagreements in the interpretation of eligibility criteria were identified as reasons underpinning discrepant findings in 14 pairs |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 44 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 44 |
| Treatment impacted | Yes |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Yes |
| Interpretation impacted description | Forest plot demonstrates one matched pair of reviews was found to be at opposing sides of the line of no effect |