Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Neonatal Reviews: A systematic analysis

Dror Mandel · Yoav Littner · Francis B. Mimouni · Ronit Lubetzky

29 citations0/0 files storedActa Paediatrica

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

AIM: To assess the conclusiveness of the Cochrane Neonatal Reviews (CNRs). We tested the hypotheses that: 1) the majority of the reviews is inconclusive; 2) the majority of reviews recognizes the need for further studies; 3) the ability to reach a conclusion is dependent upon both the number of studies and the number of patients. We also aimed to determine whether the conclusiveness of the CNRs was affected by time. METHODS: We selected CNRs available in the Cochrane Library in June 2004. The number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) found, number of RCTs included for analysis, number of patients enrolled, the stated need for further studies, and the conclusiveness of CNRs were recorded. RESULTS: Out of 170 CNRs, 67.7% were conclusive. The average number of articles was similar, but the total number of patients enrolled was three times higher in the conclusive CNRs. The percentage of articles included in conclusive studies was significantly higher than in inconclusive ones. The vast majority of CNRs recognized the need for further studies. The number of studies included correlated significantly with the total number of patients included. The percentage of conclusive CNRs correlated negatively with year of publication. CONCLUSION: The majority of CNRs is conclusive, but emphasizes the need for further studies. The ability of a CNR to reach a conclusion is affected by the cumulative sample size and by the number of studies performed. The probability of a newer review to be conclusive is lower than that of an older review.

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 — 29 citations exist upstream.

References

1997Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test 2000Publication and related bias in meta-analysis 1997Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German 2005Negative Results and Impact Factor 2002THE TYPICAL COCHRANE REVIEW 2003Cochrane neonatal systematic reviews: a survey of the evidence for neonatal therapies

Cited by

2010Cochrane systematic reviews in the field of addiction: What's there and what should be 2020Should low-quality evidence dominate high-level evidence? A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions 2017High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine 2013Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Reviews in Nutrition: a systematic analysis 2013Is The Cochrane Collaboration Prepared for the Era of Patient-Centred Outcomes Research?2015Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Eye and Vision Group Reviews 2025Evidence certainty in neonatology—a meta-epidemiological analysis of Cochrane reviews

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.