Quality of Cochrane reviews: Quality of Cochrane reviews is better than that of non-Cochrane reviews

Ref ID 85
First Author M. Petticrew
Journal BMJ: BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
Year Of Publishing 2002
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122457/pdf/545a.pdf
Keywords Cochrane
General medical
Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s) Poor execution of narrative synthesis
Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
Insufficient literature searches
Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
Number of systematic reviews included 480
Summary of Findings Analysis of the methods of 480 non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness found only half (52%) of the reviews had systematically assessed the validity of the included studies; that most systematic reviews were unlikely to be comprehensive (they had searched either one or two databases); and that overall only a quarter (26%) of reviews met three key methodological criteria (relating to a thor­ough search, assessment of the validity of the included studies, and investigation of heterogeneity). Narrative reviews were less likely to meet all three criteria (20% v 30%, P = 0.02) and more likely to be coded by raters as inconclusive. The authors conclude that up to half of non-­Cochrane reviews are thus potentially misleading.
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