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
  • [41] Global Burden of Skin Disease as Reflected in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
    Karimkhani, Chante
    Boyers, Lindsay N.
    Prescott, Laura
    Welch, Vivian
    Delamere, Finola M.
    Nasser, Mona
    Zaveri, Amrapali
    Hay, Roderick J.
    Vos, Theo
    Murray, Christopher J. L.
    Margolis, David J.
    Hilton, John
    MacLehose, Harriet
    Williams, Hywel C.
    Dellavalle, Robert P.
    [J]. JAMA DERMATOLOGY, 2014, 150 (09) : 945 - 951
  • [42] Cochrane Reviews are not perfect - but generally better than non-Cochrane systematic reviews
    Bollig, Claudia
    Rueschemeyer, Georg
    Meerpohl, Joerg J.
    [J]. SUCHT-ZEITSCHRIFT FUR WISSENSCHAFT UND PRAXIS, 2020, 66 (03): : 170 - 172
  • [43] Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies
    Windsor, B.
    Popovich, I.
    Jordan, V.
    Showell, M.
    Shea, B.
    Farquhar, C.
    [J]. HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2012, 27 (12) : 3460 - 3466
  • [44] Are Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews really better than other systematic reviews in dermatology?
    Collier, A. P.
    Heilig, L. F.
    Schilling, L. M.
    Williams, H.
    Dellavalle, R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY, 2006, 126 : 51 - 51
  • [45] Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
    Cumpston, Miranda
    Li, Tianjing
    Page, Matthew J.
    Chandler, Jacqueline
    Welch, Vivian A.
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    Thomas, James
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2019, (10):
  • [46] Empty Reviews: A Description and Consideration of Cochrane Systematic Reviews with No Included Studies
    Yaffe, Joanne
    Montgomery, Paul
    Hopewell, Sally
    Shepard, Lindsay Dianne
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (05):
  • [47] Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Reviews in Pediatric-Gastroenterology: a systematic analysis
    Cohen, Shlomi
    Lubetzky, Ronit
    Mimouni, Francis B.
    Marom, Ronella
    Mandel, Dror
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY, 2013, 25 (02) : 252 - 254
  • [48] Potential and Limitations of Cochrane Reviews in Pediatric Cardiology: A Systematic Analysis
    Poryo, Martin
    Khosrawikatoli, Sara
    Abdul-Khaliq, Hashim
    Meyer, Sascha
    [J]. PEDIATRIC CARDIOLOGY, 2017, 38 (04) : 719 - 733
  • [49] Clinical recommendations of Cochrane reviews in pediatric gastroenterology: Systematic analysis
    Goda, Yvonne
    Sauer, Harald
    Schoendorf, Dominik
    Hennes, Pia
    Gortner, Ludwig
    Graeber, Stefan
    Meyer, Sascha
    [J]. PEDIATRICS INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 57 (01) : 98 - 106
  • [50] Publication bias in meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
    Kicinski, Michal
    Springate, David A.
    Kontopantelis, Evangelos
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2015, 34 (20) : 2781 - 2793