| 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 |
• General medical • Non-Cochrane reviews • Cochrane |
| 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 |
| Article Type | Editorial |
| Article Subtype | Comment/letter |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | A letter to highlight an analysis of a sample of non-Cochrane systematic reviews in the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness published prior to 2002. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 480 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 480 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |