- Framework of problems / Objective
- Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
- Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study
| Ref ID | 700 |
| First Author | L.P. Moja |
| Journal | BMJ |
| Year Of Publishing | 2005 |
| URL | https://www.bmj.com/content/330/7499/1053 |
| Keywords |
Cochrane Risk of bias Certainty |
| Problem(s) |
Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base No quality assessment undertaken or reported |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 965 |
| Summary of Findings | Quality assessment was assessed in 88.5% of the reviews and was more often carried out in Cochrane reviews than in paper based reviews (93.9% v 60.3%). Only 51.4% used the quality assessment in the analysis and interpretation of the results or in their discussion, with no significant differences between Cochrane reviews and paper based reviews (52% v 49%). |
| 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 |