A descriptive analysis of child-relevant systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

被引:21
|
作者
Bow S. [1 ]
Klassen J. [1 ]
Chisholm A. [1 ]
Tjosvold L. [1 ,2 ]
Thomson D. [1 ,2 ]
Klassen T.P. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Moher D. [4 ]
Hartling L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
[2] Cochrane Child Health Field, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
[3] Stollery Children's Hospital, Edmonton, AB
[4] Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
Cystic Fibrosis; Publication Bias; Oral Health; Allocation Concealment; Cochrane Collaboration;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2431-10-34
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered an important tool for decision-making. There has been no recent comprehensive identification or description of child-relevant SRs. A description of existing child-relevant SRs would help to identify the extent of available child-relevant evidence available in SRs and gaps in the evidence base where SRs are required. The objective of this study was to describe child-relevant SRs from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 2, 2009).Methods: SRs were assessed for relevance using pre-defined criteria. Data were extracted and entered into an electronic form. Univariate analyses were performed to describe the SRs overall and by topic area.Results: The search yielded 1666 SRs; 793 met the inclusion criteria. 38% of SRs were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2007. Corresponding authors were most often from the UK (41%). Most SRs (59%) examined pharmacological interventions. 53% had at least one external source of funding. SRs included a median of 7 studies (IQR 3, 15) and 679 participants (IQR 179, 2833). Of all studies, 48% included only children, and 27% only adults. 94% of studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. Primary outcomes were specified in 72% of SRs. Allocation concealment and the Jadad scale were used in 97% and 25% of SRs, respectively. Adults and children were analyzed separately in 12% of SRs and as a subgroup analysis in 14%. Publication bias was assessed in only 14% of SRs. A meta-analysis was conducted in 68% of SRs with a median of 5 trials (IQR 3, 9) each. Variations in these characteristics were observed across topic areas.Conclusions: We described the methodological characteristics and rigour of child-relevant reviews in the CDSR. Many SRs are not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria. Our study describes variation in conduct and reporting across SRs and reveals clinicians' ability to access child-specific data. © 2010 Bow et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A descriptive analysis of non-Cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews published in 2014
    Michelle Gates
    Sarah A Elliott
    Cydney Johnson
    Denise Thomson
    Katrina Williams
    Ricardo M Fernandes
    Lisa Hartling
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18
  • [2] A descriptive analysis of non-Cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews published in 2014
    Gates, Michelle
    Elliott, Sarah A.
    Johnson, Cydney
    Thomson, Denise
    Williams, Katrina
    Fernandes, Ricardo M.
    Hartling, Lisa
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2018, 18
  • [3] Descriptive analysis of cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews: an update and comparison between 2009 and 2013
    Crick, Katelynn
    Thomson, Denise
    Fernandes, Ricardo M.
    Nuspl, Megan
    Eurich, Dean T.
    Rowe, Brian H.
    Hartling, Lisa
    [J]. BMC PEDIATRICS, 2017, 17
  • [4] Descriptive analysis of cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews: an update and comparison between 2009 and 2013
    Katelynn Crick
    Denise Thomson
    Ricardo M. Fernandes
    Megan Nuspl
    Dean T. Eurich
    Brian H. Rowe
    Lisa Hartling
    [J]. BMC Pediatrics, 17
  • [5] Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
    Solari, A.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, 2009, 16 (01)
  • [6] The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
    Geddes, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH, 1996, 40 (04) : 438 - 439
  • [7] How relevant is the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to nursing care?
    Geurden, Bart J. G.
    Stern, Cindy
    Piron, Cecile
    Gobert, Micheline
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING PRACTICE, 2012, 18 (06) : 519 - 526
  • [8] Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews abstract
    不详
    [J]. PROGRESS IN NEUROLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY, 2011, 15 (04) : 29 - 31
  • [9] A comparison of the quality of Cochrane systematic reviews and non Cochrane systematic reviews
    Farquhar, C.
    Popovich, I.
    Windsor, B.
    Jordan, V.
    Shea, B.
    [J]. HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2012, 27
  • [10] Alignment of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effectiveness with global burden-of-disease data: a bibliographic analysis
    Yoong, Sze Lin
    Hall, Alix
    Williams, Christopher M.
    Skelton, Eliza
    Oldmeadow, Christopher
    Wiggers, John
    Karimkhani, Chante
    Boyers, Lindsay N.
    Dellavalle, Robert P.
    Hilton, John
    Wolfenden, Luke
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2015, 69 (07): : 708 - 714