Quality of Cochrane reviews

doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7336.545/a

From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients
We are open for entries!

Online learning

BMJ Learning

High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more

Courses and Qualifications

BMJ Masterclasses

BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more

Exam Preparation

The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more

onExamination

Search all BMJ comment articles:

From

Limit by

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

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

Mark Petticrew, associate director (mark@msoc.mrc.gla.ac.uk),
Paul Wilson, research fellow,
Kath Wright, information scientist,
Fujian Song, senior research fellow

MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8RZ
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD
Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Clinical Research Unit, Princess Margaret Rose Orthopaedic Hospital, Edinburgh EH10 7ED
East Riding and Hull Health Authority, Willerby, East Yorkshire HU10 6DT

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

We have reviewed the methods of 480 systematic reviews on the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (DARE) at the University of York.2 3 Methodological details of the reviews were coded and checked by two reviewers working independently. We found that only half (52%) of the reviews had systematically assessed the validity of the included studies; that most systematic reviews were unlikely to be comprehensive (they had searched either one or two databases); and that overall only a quarter (26%) of reviews met three key methodological criteria (relating to a thorough …