Quality of Cochrane reviews

doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7336.545/a

BMJ 2002;324:545 ( 2 March )

Letters

Quality of Cochrane reviews

Quality of Cochrane reviews is better than that of non-Cochrane reviews

Another study found that most Cochrane reviews are of a good standard

Quality of Cochrane reviews is better than that of non-Cochrane reviews

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR $---$ Olsen et al assessed a sample of Cochrane reviews from 1998 and highlighted some areas where improvement is possible.¹They found that 29% of reviews had major problems, including inappropriatemethods and conclusions. As they say, improvement is still possible,but this figure nevertheless represents a major improvement onthe quality of non-Cochranereviews.

We have reviewed the methods of 480 systematic reviews on the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (DARE) atthe University of York. ² ³ Methodological details of thereviews were coded and checked by two reviewers working independently.We found that only half (52%) of the reviews had systematicallyassessed the validity of the included studies; that most systematicreviews were unlikely to be comprehensive (they had searched eitherone or two databases); and that overall only a quarter (26%) ofreviews met three key methodological criteria (relating to a thoroughsearch, assessment of the validity . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Article

Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998: Ole Olsen, Philippa Middleton, Jeanette Ezzo, Peter C Gøtzsche, Victoria Hadhazy, Andrew Herxheimer, Jos Kleijnen, and Heather McIntosh
BMJ 2001 323: 829-832. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]