A descriptive analysis of child-relevant systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

被引：21

作者：

Bow S. ^{[1
]}

Klassen J. ^{[1
]}

Chisholm A. ^{[1
]}

Tjosvold L. ^{[1
,2
]}

Thomson D. ^{[1
,2
]}

Klassen T.P. ^{[1
,2
,3
]}

Moher D. ^{[4
]}

Hartling L. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB

[2] Cochrane Child Health Field, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB

[3] Stollery Children's Hospital, Edmonton, AB

[4] Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa

来源：

BMC Pediatrics | / 10卷 / 1期

基金：

加拿大健康研究院;

关键词：

Cystic Fibrosis; Publication Bias; Oral Health; Allocation Concealment; Cochrane Collaboration;

D O I：

10.1186/1471-2431-10-34

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered an important tool for decision-making. There has been no recent comprehensive identification or description of child-relevant SRs. A description of existing child-relevant SRs would help to identify the extent of available child-relevant evidence available in SRs and gaps in the evidence base where SRs are required. The objective of this study was to describe child-relevant SRs from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 2, 2009).Methods: SRs were assessed for relevance using pre-defined criteria. Data were extracted and entered into an electronic form. Univariate analyses were performed to describe the SRs overall and by topic area.Results: The search yielded 1666 SRs; 793 met the inclusion criteria. 38% of SRs were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2007. Corresponding authors were most often from the UK (41%). Most SRs (59%) examined pharmacological interventions. 53% had at least one external source of funding. SRs included a median of 7 studies (IQR 3, 15) and 679 participants (IQR 179, 2833). Of all studies, 48% included only children, and 27% only adults. 94% of studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. Primary outcomes were specified in 72% of SRs. Allocation concealment and the Jadad scale were used in 97% and 25% of SRs, respectively. Adults and children were analyzed separately in 12% of SRs and as a subgroup analysis in 14%. Publication bias was assessed in only 14% of SRs. A meta-analysis was conducted in 68% of SRs with a median of 5 trials (IQR 3, 9) each. Variations in these characteristics were observed across topic areas.Conclusions: We described the methodological characteristics and rigour of child-relevant reviews in the CDSR. Many SRs are not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria. Our study describes variation in conduct and reporting across SRs and reveals clinicians' ability to access child-specific data. © 2010 Bow et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

引用

共 18 条

[11]

Shojania K.G., Sampson M., Ansari M.T., Ji J., Doucette S., Moher D., How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis, Ann Int Med, 147, pp. 224-233, (2007)

[12]

Shojania K.G., Sampson M., Ansari M.T., Ji J., Garritty C., Doucette S., Rader T., Moher D., Updating Systematic Reviews, Technical Review No 16 (Prepared by the University of Ottawa Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No 290-02-0017), (2007)

[13]

Moher D., Tsertsvadze A., Tricco A.C., Eccles M., Grimshaw J., Sampson M., Barrowman N., A systematic review identified few methods and strategies describing when and how to update systematic reviews, J Clin Epidemiol, 60, pp. 1095-1104, (2007)

[14]

Moher D., Tsertsvadze A., Tricco A.C., Eccles M., Grimshaw J., Sampson M., Barrowman N., When and how to update systematic reviews, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 1, (2008)

[15]

Wen J., Ren Y., Wang L., Li Y., Liu Y., Zhou M., Liu P., Ye L., Li Y., Tian W., The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study, J Clin Epidemiol, 61, pp. 770-775, (2008)

[16]

Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G., Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement, PLoS Med, 6, (2009)

[17]

Juni P., Witschi A., Bloch R., Egger M., The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis, JAMA, 282, pp. 1054-1060, (1999)

[18]

Klassen T.P., Wiebe N., Russell K., Stevens K., Hartling L., Craig W.R., Moher D., Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the society for pediatric research meeting: an example of publication bias, Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 156, pp. 474-479, (2002)

← 1 2 →