| Ref ID | 827 |
| First Author | R.B. Buchter |
| Journal | BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2021 |
| URL | https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-021-01438-z#Sec2 |
| Keywords |
• Transparency • Reproducibility • Non-Cochrane reviews |
| Problem(s) |
• Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews • Methods not described to enable replication |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Germany |
| Aim | To assess the data extraction methods from both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (indexed in MEDLINE) of health interventions published in English from May and June 2020. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From the 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (indexed in MEDLINE) of health interventions published in English from May and June 2020 some limitations with data extraction methods were observed, with Cochrane reviews performing better than non-Cochrane reviews. (51%); 42 provided information on the type of form used (28%); 24 on piloting (16%); 58 on what data was collected (38%); 133 on the extraction method (88%); 107 on resolving disagreements (70%); 103 on methods to obtain additional data or information (68%); 52 on procedures to avoid data errors (34%); and 47 on methods to deal with multiple study reports (31%). The data extraction form used was published in 10 reviews (7%). Use of software was rarely reported except for statistical analysis software and use of RevMan and GRADEpro GDT in Cochrane reviews. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 152 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 265 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |