Discrepancies in meta-analyses answering the same clinical question were hard to explain: a meta-epidemiological study

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
Missing data
Statistical
Inference
General medical
Non-Cochrane reviews
Overlapping reviews/redundancy
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
Number of systematic reviews included 44
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
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?