Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are often flawed

Evaluation of 50 systematic reviews or meta-analyses of the treatment of asthma has shown that 40 had serious or extensive flaws (p 537). All six reviews funded by the pharmaceutical industry were flawed. Most of the flaws could have been prevented easily. Jadad et al's study also found that reviews published in the Cochrane Library were more rigorous and better reported than those published in peer reviewed journals. Seven of the 10 reviews without serious flaws were Cochrane reviews. The authors suggest that future reviews should be reported more carefully, include comprehensive search strategies, reduce bias during the selection of the studies, assess the validity of the studies, describe the methods used for data synthesis, consider safety issues, and evaluate the impact of treatments on quality of life, costs, or patient preferences.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Article

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation

Alejandro R Jadad, Michael Moher, George P Browman, Lynda Booker, Christopher Sigouin, Mario Fuentes, and Robert Stevens
BMJ 2000 320: 537-540. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]