- Framework of problems / Objective
- High risk of bias (ROBIS)
- Replication of systematic reviews: is it to the benefit or detriment of methodological quality?
| Ref ID | 928 |
| First Author | C. Chapelle |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
| URL | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435623002184 |
| Keywords |
Reproducibility Risk of bias Non-Cochrane reviews Overlapping reviews/redundancy Low methodological quality Haematology |
| Problem(s) |
Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste High risk of bias (ROBIS) |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 144 |
| Summary of Findings | From 144 included systematic reviews evaluating direct oral anticoagulants in patients treated for an acute venous thromboembolism indexed in PubMed from inception to January 31, 2022. 26 systematic reviews (18.1%) were classified as original, 87 (60.4%) as conceptual replications, and 31 (21.5%) as excessive replications (redundant). The risk of bias was high in 19 (73.1%) of the original systematic reviews, 65 (74.7%) of the conceptual replications, and 21 (67.7%) of the excessive replications. Compared to the original systematic reviews, the overall methodological quality was not improved in either conceptual or excessive replications. |
| 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 |