Contradictory Findings of Two Recent Meta-Analyses: What Are We Supposed to Believe About Anesthetic Technique in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery?

Ref ID	789
First Author	P.S. Pagel
Journal	JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA
Year Of Publishing	2021
URL	https://www.jcvaonline.com/article/S1053-0770(21)00352-9/fulltext
Keywords	Surgery Cardiology Inference Team Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s)	Errors in study inclusion or omission of relevant studies Inflexible methods to complex questions Following guidelines is no guarantee of a rigorous systematic review Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
Number of systematic reviews included	2
Summary of Findings	The letter to the editor highlights the discrepant findings of two conflicting systematic reviews published in 2020 and 2021 on volatile anaesthesia with total intravenous anaesthesia on outcomes after cardiac surgery, including coronary artery bypass grafting. The authors consider that the exclusion of OP-CAB patients by one of the reviews was inappropriate and introduced bias into the meta-analysis.
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