- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
- Methodological issues and recommendations for systematic reviews of prognostic studies: an example from cardiovascular disease
| Ref ID | 738 |
| First Author | J.Dretzke |
| Journal | SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS |
| Year Of Publishing | 2014 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25466903/ |
| Keywords |
Cardiology Heterogeneity Risk of bias Prognostic |
| Problem(s) |
Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review No quality assessment undertaken or reported Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 8 |
| Summary of Findings | Across the 8 included systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question of aspirin resistance as a prognostic factor for future vascular events, there were considerable differences in the numbers of studies identified and overlap between included studies, which could only partially be explained by different study eligibility criteria. Incomplete reporting and differences in terminology within primary studies hampered study identification and selection process across reviews. Quality assessment was highly variable and only one systematic review considered a checklist for studies of prognostic questions. Only two of the eight systematic reviews used quality assessment to inform the discussion around their findings. |
| 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 |