Some caution is needed in interpreting Cochrane reviews

Cochrane reviews contain methodological and other weaknesses, in particular the over-rating by the reviewers in their conclusions of the benefits of new interventions. Olsen and colleagues (p 829) assessed the quality of a sample of 53 reviews first published in the Cochrane Library in 1998 and found major problems in 15. The evidence did not fully support the conclusion in nine reviews, the conduct or reporting was unsatisfactory in 12, and stylistic problems (such as errors in spelling or grammar) occurred in 12. The authors say that although the Cochrane Library remains a key source of evidence on the effects of health interventions, the reviews should be interpreted cautiously.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    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]