- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
- 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 |