Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses - A comparison of COCHRANE reviews with articles published in paper-based journals

被引:368
作者
Jadad, AR
Cook, DJ
Jones, A
Klassen, TP
Tugwell, P
Moher, M
Moher, D
机构
[1] McMaster Univ, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Biostat, Hlth Informat Res Unit, Hamilton, ON L8N 3Z5, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Dept Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[3] Childrens Hosp Eastern Ontario, Thomas C Chalmers Ctr Systemat Reviews, Res Inst, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L1, Canada
[4] Univ Ottawa, Dept Pediat, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada
[5] Univ Ottawa, Dept Med, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5, Canada
[6] Univ Oxford, Dept Primary Hlth Care, Oxford, England
来源
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION | 1998年 / 280卷 / 03期
关键词
D O I
10.1001/jama.280.3.278
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:278 / 280
页数:3
相关论文
共 7 条
  • [1] THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY AND CONCLUSIONS IN REVIEWS OF SPINAL MANIPULATION
    ASSENDELFT, WJJ
    KOES, BW
    KNIPSCHILD, PG
    BOUTER, LM
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 274 (24): : 1942 - 1948
  • [2] Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses?
    Berlin, JA
    [J]. LANCET, 1997, 350 (9072) : 185 - 186
  • [3] THE COCHRANE COLLABORATION - PREPARING, MAINTAINING, AND DISSEMINATING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF THE EFFECTS OF HEALTH-CARE
    BERO, L
    RENNIE, D
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 274 (24): : 1935 - 1938
  • [4] Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
    Egger, M
    Smith, GD
    Schneider, M
    Minder, C
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 315 (7109): : 629 - 634
  • [5] Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: A systematic qualitative review of their methodology
    Jadad, AR
    McQuay, HJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1996, 49 (02) : 235 - 243
  • [6] JADAD AR, 1998, MED DECIS MAKING, V279, P611
  • [7] Sacks HS, 1996, MT SINAI J MED, V63, P216