Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy

被引：139

作者：

Moseley, Anne M. ^{[1
]}

Elkins, Mark R. ^{[2
]}

Herbert, Robert D. ^{[1
]}

Maher, Christopher G. ^{[1
]}

Sherrington, Catherine ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Univ Sydney, Musculoskeletal Div, George Inst Int Hlth, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia

[2] Royal Prince Alfred Hosp, Dept Resp Med, Sydney, NSW, Australia

来源：

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY | 2009年 / 62卷 / 10期

基金：

英国医学研究理事会;

关键词：

Physical therapy (specialty); Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Quality; Evidence-based practice; Method; Survey; Methodological study; RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIALS; QUALITY; METAANALYSES; CARE; PREVENTION; EDUCATION; PROGRAMS; DATABASE; THERAPY; PAIN;

D O I：

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.018

中图分类号：

R19 [保健组织与事业（卫生事业管理）];

学科分类号：

摘要：

Objective: To describe the quality and methods of systematic reviews of physiotherapy interventions, compare Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, and establish the interrater reliability of the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) quality assessment tool. Study Design and Setting: A survey of 200 published systematic reviews was done. Two independent raters assessed the search strategy, assessment of trial quality, outcomes, pooling, conclusions, and overall quality (OQAQ). The study was carried out in the University research center. Results: In these reviews, the five most common databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Cochrane Review Group Registers. The Cochrane allocation concealment system and Jadad Scale were most frequently used to assess trial quality. Cochrane reviews searched more databases and were more likely to assess trial quality, report dichotomous outcomes for individual trials, and conduct a meta-analysis than non-Cochrane reviews. Non-Cochrane reviews were more likely to conclude that there was a beneficial effect of treatment. Cochrane reviews were of higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews. There has been an increase in the quality of systematic reviews over time. The OQAQ has fair to good interrater reliability. Conclusion: The quality of systematic reviews in physiotherapy is improving, and the use of Cochrane Collaboration procedures appears to improve the methods and quality. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

引用

页码：1021 / 1030

页数：10

共 43 条

[1]

[Anonymous], BMC PEDIAT

[2]

[Anonymous], COCHRANE DATABASE SY

[3] A METHOD FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF A RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL [J].

CHALMERS, TC ;

SMITH, H ;

BLACKBURN, B ;

SILVERMAN, B ;

SCHROEDER, B ;

REITMAN, D ;

AMBROZ, A .

CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1981, 2 (01) :31-49

[4]

Cote P, 2001, Spine (Phila Pa 1976), V26, pE445, DOI 10.1097/00007632-200110010-00020

[5] A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature [J].

Delaney, A ;

Bagshaw, SM ;

Ferland, A ;

Manns, B ;

Laupland, KB ;

Doig, CJ .

CRITICAL CARE, 2005, 9 (05) :R575-R582

[6] The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: An independent appraisal [J].

Delaney, Anthony ;

Bagshaw, Sean M. ;

Ferland, Andre ;

Laupland, Kevin ;

Manns, Braden ;

Doig, Christopher .

CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2007, 35 (02) :589-594

[7]

DEYO RA, 1983, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V250, P1057

[8]

Egger M, 2003, Health Technol Assess, V7, P1

[9]

Fleiss J., 1986, Reliability of measurement: the design and analysis of clinical experiments

[10]

Gibbons RJ, 2002, ACC AHA 2002 GUIDELI

← 1 2 3 4 5 →