- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Incorrect interpretation or statistical inference error from meta-analysis
- Causal language use in systematic reviews of observational studies is often inconsistent with intent: a systematic survey
| Ref ID | 869 |
| First Author | M.A. Han |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435622001123?via%3Dihub |
| Keywords |
Observational studies Inference Language Non-Cochrane reviews |
| Problem(s) |
Low reporting or methodological quality (OTHER GUIDANCE) Incorrect interpretation or statistical inference error from meta-analysis |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 199 |
| Summary of Findings | From 199 included reviews of observational studies randomly selected from those indexed in EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Epistemonikos in 2019. 56.8% had causal intent. Systematic reviews with causal intent were more likely to investigate therapeutic clinical intervention (33.6% vs. 12.8%). Although 78.8% of those with causal intent used causal language in one or more sections of the title, abstract, or main text, only 4.4% consistently used causal language throughout the manuscript, and 21.2% did not use causal language at all. |
| 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? | Yes |