| Titre : | Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses : A comparison of Cochrane Reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. (1998) |
| Auteurs : | A.R. JADAD ; D.J. COOK ; A. JONES ; T.P. KLASSEN ; M. MOHER ; D. MOHER ; P. TUGWELL ; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. McMaster University. Hamilton Ontario. CAN ; Department of Medicine. University of Ottawa. Ottawa Ontario. CAN ; Thomas C Chalmers Center for Systematic Reviews. Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute. Ottawa Ontario. CAN ; International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. (1997/09; Prague. CZE) |
| Type de document : | Article |
| Dans : | JAMA - Journal of the american medical association (n° 3, 1998) |
| Pagination : | 278-280 |
| Langues: | Anglais |
| Mots-clés : | Article ; Etude comparée ; Méthodologie ; Homme |
| Résumé : | [BDSP. Notice produite par INIST NHgR0x6D. Diffusion soumise à autorisation]. Context. - Review articles are important sources of information to help guide decisions by clinicians, patients, and other decision makers. Ideally, reviews should include strategies to minimize bias and to maximize precision and be reported so explicitly that any interested reader would be able to replicate them. Objective. - To compare the methodological and reporting aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published in paper-based journals indexed in MEDLINE. Data Sources. - The Cochrane Library, issue 2 of 1995, and a search of MEDLINE restricted to 1995. Study Selection. - All 36 completed reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and a randomly selected sample of 39 meta-analyses or systematic reviews published in journals indexed by MEDLINE in 1995. Data Extraction. - Number of authors, trials, and patients ; trial sources ; inclusion and exclusion criteria ; language restrictions ; primary outcome ; trial quality assessment ; heterogeneity testing ; and effect estimates. Updating by 1997 was evaluated. Results. - Reviews found in MEDLINE included more authors (median, 3 vs 2 ; P<. 001.), more trials (median, 13.5 vs 5 ; P<. 001), and more patients (median, 1280 vs 528 ; P<. 001) than Cochrane reviews. More Cochrane reviews, however, included a description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria (35/36 vs 18/39 ; P<. 001) and assessed trial quality (36/36 vs 12/39 ; P<. 001). (...) |
Service Documentation EHESP
Me connecter
PORTAIL DOCUMENTAIRE
École des hautes études en santé publique
Catalogue
Multi-bases
Accueil
Sélection de la langue
Adresse
Service Documentation EHESPBibliothèque Rennes Avenue du Professeur Léon Bernard – CS 74312 – 35043 Rennes Cedex Bibliothèque MSSH Paris 20 avenue George Sand - 93210 La Plaine Saint-Denis
France
Bibliothèque Rennes : 02 99 02 29 50 Bibliothèque MSSH Paris : 02 99 02 24 50
contact