Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews

Ref ID 639
First Author E. M. Beller
Journal JAMA
Year Of Publishing 2011
URL https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/1731849/jlt1109_1981_1982.pdf
Keywords • Abstract / summary
• General medical
• Cochrane
• Statistical
• Error
Problem(s) • Errors in systematic review abstracts or plain language summaries
Article Type Editorial
Article Subtype Comment/letter
First Author Country Australia
Aim To examine a sample of systematic review abstracts to assess the nature and extent of any deficiencies in reporting from both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews
Level of Investigation Analytical
Summary of Findings For 42% of abstracts of systematic reviews, the direction of the main effect either could not be determined or needed to be inferred. Statistical uncertainty was also poorly reported: 24% of abstracts reported neither a confidence interval nor a P value.
Number of systematic reviews included 182
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 1365
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted No
Interpretation impacted description