Abstract
The validity of primary study results included in systematic reviews plays an important role in drawing conclusions about intervention effectiveness and carries implications for clinical decision-making. We evaluated the prevalence of methodological quality and risk of bias assessments in systematic reviews published in the five highest-ranked anaesthesia journals since 2007. The initial PubMed search yielded 315 citations, and our final sample after screening consisted of 207 systematic reviews. One hundred and seventy-four reviews conducted methodological quality/risk of bias analyses. The Jadad scale was most frequently used. Forty-four of the 83 reviews that included high risk of bias studies re-analysed their data omitting these trials: 20 showed differences in pooled effect estimates. Reviews containing a greater number of primary studies evaluated quality less frequently than smaller reviews. Overall, the majority of reviews evaluated bias; however, many applied questionable methods. Given the potential effects of bias on summary outcomes, greater attention is warranted.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 955-968 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Anaesthesia |
| Volume | 71 |
| Issue number | 8 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 1 Aug 2016 |
Keywords
- Cochrane
- Meta-analysis
- Research quality
- Risk of bias
- Systematic review