Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2015
Limitations in conduct and reporting of cochrane reviews rarely inhibit the determination of the validity of evidence for clinical decision-making.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alper Brian S, Fedorowicz Zbys, van Zuuren Esther J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine how often clinical conclusions derived from Cochrane Reviews have uncertain validity due to review conduct and reporting deficiencies.
METHODS: We evaluated 5142 clinical conclusions in DynaMed (an evidence-based point-of-care clinical reference) based on 4743 Cochrane Reviews. Clinical conclusions with level 2 evidence due to shortcomings in the review's conduct or reporting (rather than deficiencies in the underlying evidence) were confirmed by a DynaMed editor and two Cochrane Review authors.
RESULTS: Thirty-one Cochrane Reviews (0.65%) had confirmed deficiencies in conduct and reporting as the reason for classifying 37 assessed clinical conclusions (0.72%) as level 2 evidence. In all cases, it was not feasible for the assessors to specify a clear criticism of the studies included in the reviews. The deficiencies were specific to not accounting for dropouts (2) or inadequate assessment and reporting of allocation concealment (11), other specific trial quality criteria (14), or all trial quality criteria (4).
CONCLUSIONS: Cochrane Reviews provide high-quality assessment and synthesis of evidence, with fewer than 1% of Cochrane Reviews having limitations which hinder the summary of best current evidence for clinical decision-making. We expect this will further decrease following recent Cochrane quality initiatives.
METHODS: We evaluated 5142 clinical conclusions in DynaMed (an evidence-based point-of-care clinical reference) based on 4743 Cochrane Reviews. Clinical conclusions with level 2 evidence due to shortcomings in the review's conduct or reporting (rather than deficiencies in the underlying evidence) were confirmed by a DynaMed editor and two Cochrane Review authors.
RESULTS: Thirty-one Cochrane Reviews (0.65%) had confirmed deficiencies in conduct and reporting as the reason for classifying 37 assessed clinical conclusions (0.72%) as level 2 evidence. In all cases, it was not feasible for the assessors to specify a clear criticism of the studies included in the reviews. The deficiencies were specific to not accounting for dropouts (2) or inadequate assessment and reporting of allocation concealment (11), other specific trial quality criteria (14), or all trial quality criteria (4).
CONCLUSIONS: Cochrane Reviews provide high-quality assessment and synthesis of evidence, with fewer than 1% of Cochrane Reviews having limitations which hinder the summary of best current evidence for clinical decision-making. We expect this will further decrease following recent Cochrane quality initiatives.