Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals.
Alejandro R. Jadad,Deborah J. Cook,Alison Jones,Terry P. Klassen,Peter Tugwell,Michael Moher,David Moher +6 more
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
Cochrane reviews appear to have greater methodological rigor and are more frequently updated than systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in paper-based journals.Abstract:
Context.—Review articles are important sources of information to help guide decisions
by clinicians, patients, and other decision makers. Ideally, reviews should
include strategies to minimize bias and to maximize precision and be reported
so explicitly that any interested reader would be able to replicate them.Objective.—To compare the methodological and reporting aspects of systematic reviews
and meta-analyses published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published
in paper-based journals indexed in MEDLINE.Data Sources.—The Cochrane Library, issue 2 of 1995, and a search of MEDLINE restricted
to 1995.Study Selection.—All 36 completed reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews and a randomly selected sample of 39 meta-analyses or systematic reviews
published in journals indexed by MEDLINE in 1995.Data Extraction.—Number of authors, trials, and patients; trial sources; inclusion and
exclusion criteria; language restrictions; primary outcome; trial quality
assessment; heterogeneity testing; and effect estimates. Updating by 1997
was evaluated.Results.—Reviews found in MEDLINE included more authors (median, 3 vs 2; P<.001), more trials (median, 13.5 vs 5; P<.001), and more patients (median, 1280 vs 528; P <.001) than Cochrane reviews. More Cochrane reviews, however,
included a description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria (35/36 vs 18/39; P<.001) and assessed trial quality (36/36 vs 12/39; P<.001). No Cochrane reviews had language restrictions
(0/36 vs 7/39; P<.01). There were no differences
in sources of trials, heterogeneity testing, or description of effect estimates.
By June 1997, 18 of 36 Cochrane reviews had been updated vs 1 of 39 reviews
listed in MEDLINE.Conclusions.—Cochrane reviews appear to have greater methodological rigor and are
more frequently updated than systematic reviews or meta-analyses published
in paper-based journals.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses
David Moher,David Moher,Ba' Pham,Alison Jones,Deborah J. Cook,Alejandro R. Jadad,Michael Moher,Peter Tugwell,Terry P. Klassen,Terry P. Klassen +9 more
TL;DR: Study of low methodological quality in which the estimate of quality is incorporated into the meta-analyses can alter the interpretation of the benefit of intervention, whether a scale or component approach is used in the assessment of trial quality.
Journal ArticleDOI
Exercise-based rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Rod S Taylor,Allan Brown,Shah Ebrahim,Judith Jolliffe,Hussein Noorani,Karen Rees,Becky Skidmore,James A. Stone,David R. Thompson,Neil Oldridge +9 more
TL;DR: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted in this paper, showing that cardiac rehabilitation was associated with reduced all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 0.93).
Journal ArticleDOI
Publication and related bias in meta-analysis : power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature
TL;DR: Tests for small-study effects should routinely be performed in meta-analysis, particularly for moderate amounts of bias or meta-analyses based on a small number of small studies.
Journal ArticleDOI
Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade
TL;DR: The process used to write a narrative review of the literature for publication in a peer-reviewed journal is described and step by step instructions for how to conduct andwrite a narrative overview utilizing a 'best-evidence synthesis' approach are discussed.
Journal ArticleDOI
The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.
TL;DR: The growth of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses is explored and how often they are redundant, misleading, or serving conflicted interests is estimated.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
TL;DR: Funnel plots, plots of the trials' effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials.
Journal ArticleDOI
Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology.
TL;DR: Ninety percent of the meta-analyses had methodological flaws that could limit their validity and the main deficiencies were lack of information on methods to retrieve and to assess the validity of primary studies and lack of data on the design of the primary studies.
Journal Article
Meta-analysis: an update.
TL;DR: The quality of meta-analyses of randomized control trial reports in the english language literature was evaluated using a scoring method that lists 23 items in six major areas: study design, combinability, control of bias, statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis, and application of results.
Journal ArticleDOI
The Relationship Between Methodological Quality and Conclusions in Reviews of Spinal Manipulation
TL;DR: The majority of the reviews concluded that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for low back pain, and although the reviews with a relatively high methodological quality had a positive conclusion, strong conclusions were precluded by the overall low quality of the Reviews.