| Ref ID | 932 |
| First Author | M. Siebert |
| Journal | PEERJ |
| Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
| URL | https://peerj.com/articles/16016/ |
| Keywords |
• Non-Cochrane reviews • Transparency • Protocols • Cochrane |
| Problem(s) |
• Undocumented or unjustified deviations to the review protocol • Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United States |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 2 |
| Aim | To assess the completeness of reporting of deviations from the protocol for both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews indexed in PubMed and Cochrane databases in 2018. |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| Summary of Findings | From 194 included systematic reviews (97 Cochrane and 97 non-Cochrane systematic reviews) indexed in PubMed and Cochrane databases in 2018. More than half of each sub-sample, 54.6% of Cochrane systematic reviews and 67.0% of non-Cochrane systematic reviews had changes in PICOS elements (ARR 12.4% [−1.3%; 26.0%]). Most changes related to the primary outcome whatever the type of systematic review. Only 3/119 (4.2%) of changes in PICOS items were reported in non-Cochrane systematic reviews, compared to 62/108 (57.4%) to Cochrane systematic reviews (ARR 53.2% [43.2%; 63.2%]). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 194 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 987 |