- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
- Overlapping systematic reviews of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing hamstring autograft with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: why are they different?
Ref ID | 652 |
First Author | R. W. Poolman |
Journal | JBJS |
Year Of Publishing | 2007 |
URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17606794/ |
Keywords |
Surgery Spin Overlapping reviews/redundancy |
Problem(s) |
Spin or subjective interpretation of findings Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste |
Number of systematic reviews included | 11 |
Summary of Findings | New “overlapping” systematic reviews were conducted without citation of previously published reviews on the same topic and the methodological quality of the reviews (QUOROM) was variable |
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 |