Methodology and Reports of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Alejandro R. Jadad · Terry Paul Klassen · Peter Tugwell · Michael Moher · David Moher

534 citations0/0 files storedJAMA

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

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.

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 — 534 citations exist upstream.

References

1997Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

Cited by

2003The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews 2000What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?2006Religion/spirituality and adolescent health outcomes: a review 2010Emotional intelligence in medicine: a systematic review through the context of the ACGME competencies 2000Publication and related biases.2014Which is more generalizable, powerful and interpretable in meta-analyses, mean difference or standardized mean difference?2000Effect of Patient Reminder/Recall Interventions on Immunization Rates 2008Recommendations by Cochrane Review Groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies

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.