- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Data extraction errors and double counting
- Selecting studies (not reports) as the unit of interest of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an essential practice
| Ref ID | 673 |
| First Author | A. Carneiro-Barrera |
| Journal | INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2020 |
| URL | http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41366-020-0556-0 |
| Keywords |
Error Cognition |
| Problem(s) |
Data extraction errors and double counting |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 1 |
| Summary of Findings | The authors describe multiple examples in the systematic review in question where double counting is likely to have taken place and several reports relating to the same clinical trial registration are treated as separate data. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |