Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology

Annaleise Collier · Lauren F. Heilig · Hywel C Williams · Robert Paul Dellavalle

73 citations0/0 files storedBritish Journal of Dermatology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Clinical practice guidelines implementation Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Cochrane collaboration aims to produce high-quality systematic reviews. It is not known whether the methods used in producing Cochrane Skin Group (CSG) reviews result in higher quality reviews than other systematic reviews in dermatology. OBJECTIVES: To determine how the methodological quality of dermatological CSG reviews published in The Cochrane Library and in peer-reviewed journals compare with non-Cochrane systematic reviews. METHODS: Two blinded investigators independently assessed review quality using the 10-item Oxman and Guyatt scale. RESULTS: Thirty-eight systematic reviews (17 Cochrane reviews published in The Cochrane Library, 11 Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals and 10 non-Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals) were examined. The Cochrane Library reviews included quality of life (11/17 vs. 1/10, P = 0.014) and adverse outcomes (14/17 vs. 2/10, P = 0.003) more often than non-Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals. Cochrane reviews published in both peer-reviewed journals and The Cochrane Library were more likely to include comprehensive search strategies (11/11 and 17/17 vs. 6/10, P-values = 0.04 and 0.01), take steps to minimize selection bias (11/11 and 16/17 vs. 3/10, P-values = 0.003 and 0.001) and appropriately assess the validity of all included trials (10/11 and 16/17 vs. 4/10, P-values = 0.04 and 0.007) than non-Cochrane reviews. Overall, Cochrane reviews published both in peer-reviewed journals and in The Cochrane Library were assigned higher quality scores by reviewers than non-Cochrane reviews (median = 6.0 and 6.5 vs. 4.5, P-values = 0.01 and 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The Cochrane Library systematic review methodology leads to higher quality reviews on dermatological topics.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 73 citations exist upstream.

References

1991Validation of an index of the quality of review articles 1998Methodology and Reports of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses 1994Systematic Reviews: Checklists for review articles 1991Agreement among reviewers of review articles 2000Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation 1996Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: A systematic qualitative review of their methodology 2002A Comparison of the Quality of Cochrane Reviews and Systematic Reviews Published in Paper-Based Journals 2001Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature

Cited by

2019Searching for qualitative health research required several databases and alternative search strategies: a study of coverage in bibliographic databases 2014Quantifying Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Child Health: A Meta-Epidemiological Study 2014Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II 2014Methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination 2009The Quality of Meta-Analyses of Genetic Association Studies: A Review With Recommendations

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.