| Ref ID | 616 |
| First Author | A. M. Moseley |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2009 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(08)00332-6/fulltext |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • General medical • Non-Cochrane reviews |
| Problem(s) |
• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Australia |
| Checklists |
• OQAQ |
| Aim | To assess the quality and methods of systematic reviews of physiotherapy interventions in 63 Cochrane and 137 non- Cochrane reviews published between 1997-2006 |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Cochrane reviews searched more databases and were more likely to have assessed trial quality, reported dichotomous outcomes for individual trials and pooled data in a meta-analysis. Non-Cochrane reviews were more likely to conclude that there was a beneficial effect of treatment. Cochrane reviews were of higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 200 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 590 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |