| Ref ID | 600 |
| First Author | R. D. Riley |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2011 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(10)00284-2/fulltext |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • Expertise • Gynaecology • Statistical • Publication bias • Heterogeneity • Inference |
| Problem(s) |
• Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity • Poor consideration of publication bias • Lack of statistical expertise in handling of quantitative data • Incorrect interpretation or statistical inference error from meta-analysis |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To assess statistical methods within systematic reviews of the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group that contained at least ten included studies |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Of the 44 reviews that reported one or more random effects meta-analyses, none correctly interpreted its pooled result. 91% of reviews did not assess publication bias. 65% of reviews with substantial heterogeneity did not explore the causes of the heterogeneity. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 75 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 365 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |