- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Data extraction errors and double counting
- Errors in the conduct of systematic reviews of pharmacological interventions for irritable bowel syndrome
Ref ID | 635 |
First Author | A. C. Ford |
Journal | AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY |
Year Of Publishing | 2010 |
URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19920807/ |
Keywords |
Cochrane Missing data Pharmacological Error |
Problem(s) |
Errors in study inclusion or omission of relevant studies Data extraction errors and double counting Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews |
Number of systematic reviews included | 8 |
Summary of Findings | In fi ve of the eight meta-analyses 13 – 29 % of included trials were ineligible according to investigators ’ criteria, constituting 8 – 26 % of included patients. Six of the meta-analyses missed 17 separate published eligible trials; 3 – 11 % of eligible patients were, as a result, not included. All eight meta-analyses contained errors in dichotomous data extraction, in 29 – 100 % of truly eligible trials, leading to errors in 15 of 16 reported pooled treatment effects. |
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? | Yes |