How useful are systematic reviews for informing palliative care practice? Survey of 25 Cochrane systematic reviews

被引:35
|
作者
Wee B. [1 ,2 ]
Hadley G. [3 ]
Derry S. [3 ]
机构
[1] Sir Michael Sobell House, Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals, Churchill Hospital, Headington, Oxford
[2] Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3TD, Mansfield Road
[3] Nuffield Department of Anaesthetics, University of Oxford, Churchill Hospital, Headington, Oxford
关键词
Palliative Care; Primary Study; Cochrane Review; Cochrane Database; Methodological Heterogeneity;
D O I
10.1186/1472-684X-7-13
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background. In contemporary medical research, randomised controlled trials are seen as the gold standard for establishing treatment effects where it is ethical and practical to conduct them. In palliative care such trials are often impractical, unethical, or extremely difficult, with multiple methodological problems. We review the utility of Cochrane reviews in informing palliative care practice. Methods. Published reviews in palliative care registered with the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group as of December 2007 were obtained from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, issue 1, 2008. We reviewed the quality and quantity of primary studies available for each review, assessed the quality of the review process, and judged the strength of the evidence presented. There was no prior intention to perform any statistical analyses. Results. 25 published systematic reviews were identified. Numbers of included trials ranged from none to 54. Within each review, included trials were heterogeneous with respect to patients, interventions, and outcomes, and the number of patients contributing to any single analysis was generally much lower than the total included in the review. A variety of tools were used to assess trial quality; seven reviews did not use this information to exclude low quality studies, weight analyses, or perform sensitivity analysis for effect of low quality. Authors indicated that there were frequently major problems with the primary studies, individually or in aggregate. Our judgment was that the reviewing process was generally good in these reviews, and that conclusions were limited by the number, size, quality and validity of the primary studies. We judged the evidence about 23 of the 25 interventions to be weak. Two reviews had stronger evidence, but with limitations due to methodological heterogeneity or definition of outcomes. No review provided strong evidence of no effect. Conclusion. Cochrane reviews in palliative care are well performed, but fail to provide good evidence for clinical practice because the primary studies are few in number, small, clinically heterogeneous, and of poor quality and external validity. They are useful in highlighting the weakness of the evidence base and problems in performing trials in palliative care. © 2008 Wee et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Are Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews really better than other systematic reviews in dermatology?
    Collier, A. P.
    Heilig, L. F.
    Schilling, L. M.
    Williams, H.
    Dellavalle, R.
    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY, 2006, 126 : 51 - 51
  • [42] Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
    Cumpston, Miranda
    Li, Tianjing
    Page, Matthew J.
    Chandler, Jacqueline
    Welch, Vivian A.
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    Thomas, James
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2019, (10):
  • [43] Empty Reviews: A Description and Consideration of Cochrane Systematic Reviews with No Included Studies
    Yaffe, Joanne
    Montgomery, Paul
    Hopewell, Sally
    Shepard, Lindsay Dianne
    PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (05):
  • [44] Citation patterns of Cochrane Reviews and other systematic reviews: a bibliometric analysis
    Rosengaard, Louise Olsbro
    Andersen, Mikkel Zola
    Rosenberg, Jacob
    Fonnes, Siv
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2025, 41 (01) : 163 - 171
  • [45] The quality of Cochrane systematic reviews of acupuncture: an overview
    Zhaochen Ji
    Junhua Zhang
    Francesca Menniti-Ippolito
    Marco Massari
    Alice Josephine Fauci
    Na Li
    Fengwen Yang
    Mingyan Zhang
    BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, 20
  • [46] Cochrane Systematic Reviews in a world with data sharing
    Boutron, Isabelle
    COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2016, 10 : 31 - 32
  • [47] Cochrane Collaboration: more than systematic reviews?
    Green, S
    McDonald, S
    INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2005, 35 (01) : 4 - 5
  • [48] The Growth of Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews in Informing Dermatological Patient Care
    Williams, Hywel C.
    Dellavalle, Robert P.
    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY, 2012, 132 (03) : 1008 - 1017
  • [49] The quality of Cochrane systematic reviews of acupuncture: an overview
    Ji, Zhaochen
    Zhang, Junhua
    Menniti-Ippolito, Francesca
    Massari, Marco
    Fauci, Alice Josephine
    Li, Na
    Yang, Fengwen
    Zhang, Mingyan
    BMC COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE AND THERAPIES, 2020, 20 (01)
  • [50] Cochrane systematic reviews: time for an introduction and appraisal
    Ling, W
    Farrell, M
    Ali, R
    DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE, 2004, 73 (03) : 217 - 218