Accounting for single center effects in systematic reviews cannot be overlooked

Ref ID 669
First Author B.A.M.P. Besen
Journal CRITICAL CARE
Year Of Publishing 2017
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1804-0
Keywords Error
Nephrology
Problem(s) Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data
Errors in study inclusion or omission of relevant studies
Number of systematic reviews included 1
Summary of Findings The authors of the editorial re-conducted the meta-analysis from the systematic review but also included multi-centre RCTs (which had been excluded by the review in question) and in contrast to the systematic review authors, found no significant treatment effect from renal replacement therapy.
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