- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Insufficient literature searches
- 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303 (45%) reported that they searched clinical trial registries; 57 (8.5%) reported that they searched for unpublished data, 184 (27.3%) searched grey literature, 51 (7.6%) searched citations, and 546 (81%) searched references of included studies.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 |