| 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 • Certainty • Risk of bias |
| Problem(s) |
• Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base • No quality assessment undertaken or reported |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Italy |
| Aim | To assess how the methodological quality of primary studies was assessed in systematic reviews and whether the quality assessment was taken into account in the interpretation of results. Cochrane systematic reviews and systematic reviews in paper based journals. published between 1995 and 2002 were sampled. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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%). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 965 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 965 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |