- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
- 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? |