- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Errors in study inclusion or omission of relevant studies
- 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 • 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 |
| 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? | N/A |