- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Data extraction errors and double counting
- Validity of data extraction in evidence synthesis practice of adverse events: reproducibility study
Ref ID | 837 |
First Author | C. Xu |
Journal | BMJ |
Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
URL | https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj-2021-069155.full |
Keywords |
Harms Reproducibility Error Non-Cochrane reviews |
Problem(s) |
Data extraction errors and double counting |
Number of systematic reviews included | 201 |
Summary of Findings | From 201 included systematic reviews of RCTs indexed on Pubmed between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2020. The 201 comprising reviews included 829 pairwise meta-analyses, and data extraction could not be reproduced in 1762 (17.0%) of 10 386 trials. In 554 (66.8%) of 829 meta-analyses, at least one randomised controlled trial had data extraction errors; 171 (85.1%) of 201 systematic reviews had at least one meta-analysis with data extraction errors. Meta-analyses that had two or more different types of errors were more susceptible to these changes than those with only one type of error (for moderate changes, 11 (28.2%) of 39 v 26 (10.4%) 249, P=0.002; for large changes, 5 (12.8%) of 39 v 8 (3.2%) of 249, P=0.01). |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Yes |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |