|JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
|Year Of Publishing
Risk of bias
Lack of supplementary searches beyond databases
Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
Flawed risk of bias undertaken
Errors in study inclusion or omission of relevant studies
|Number of systematic reviews included
|Summary of Findings
|From a letter highlighting concerns in the conduct of a systematic review of electronic health interventions for patients with breast cancer published in 2022. The letter authors highlight that the review did not conduct a supplementary search and may have thus missed some relevant studies. The reference lists of other systematic reviews on similar topics and found two potentially relevant randomised controlled trials that were not included. The first version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used which does not provide an overall judgment of risk of bias for each individual study. The letter authors argue that doing this and using the assessments to carry out a GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) evaluation would have provided readers with a more robust and accurate picture of the findings.
|Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?