- Framework of problems / Objective
- Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
- 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 |