Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and non‐Cochrane systematic reviews: A case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain

Ref ID 751
First Author M.Biocic
Journal RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS
Year Of Publishing 2019
URL https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31393677/
Keywords Cochrane
Grey literature
Pain
Searching
Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s) Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
Insufficient literature searches
Lack of supplementary searches beyond databases
Number of systematic reviews included 674
Summary of Findings Systematic reviews in the field of anaesthesiology and pain often neglected to search all possible information sources, particularly Non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Non-reporting of search date was more prevalent in non-Cochrane reviews. From 674 included reviews (300 Cochrane; 374 non-Cochrane) 303 (45%) reported that they searched clinical trial registries; 57 (8.5%) reported that they searched for unpublished data, 184 (27.3%) searched grey literature, 51 (7.6%) searched citations, and 546 (81%) searched references of included studies. A substantial amount of Cochrane reviews searched clinical trial registries (75.7%), compared with non-Cochrane (20.3%).
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? No