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
Article Type Editorial
Article Subtype Comment/letter
First Author Country Brazil
Aim To highlight issues with one systematic review which meta-analysed only single-centre studies finding a significant treatment effect from renal replacement therapy
Level of Investigation Analytical
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.
Number of systematic reviews included 1
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 1
Treatment impacted Yes
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Yes
Interpretation impacted description The authors performed a random-effects meta-analysis excluding studies that were not related to the systematic review’s original inclusion criteria and with a subgroup analysis to investigate single center effects. When considering only multicenter trials, the point estimate is pulled to the null and the results are neutral.