White Rose University Consortium logo
University of Leeds logo University of Sheffield logo York University logo

Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998

Olsen, O., Middleton, P., Ezzo, J., Gotzsche, P., Hadhazy, V., Herxheimer, A., Kleijnen, J. and McIntosh, H. (2001) Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ, 323 (7317). pp. 829-832. ISSN 0959-8146

Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

Objective: To assess the quality of Cochrane reviews.

Design: Ten methodologists affiliated with the Cochrane Collaboration independently examined, in a semistructured way, the quality of reviews first published in 1998. Each review was assessed by two people; if one of them noted any major problems, they agreed on a common assessment. Predominant types of problem were categorised.

Setting: Cyberspace collaboration coordinated from the Nordic Cochrane Centre.

Studies: All 53 reviews first published in issue 4 of the Cochrane Library in 1998.

Main outcome measure: Proportion of reviews with various types of major problem.

Results: No problems or only minor ones were found in most reviews. Major problems were identified in 15 reviews (29%). The evidence did not fully support the conclusion in nine reviews (17%), the conduct or reporting was unsatisfactory in 12 reviews (23%), and stylistic problems were identified in 12 reviews (23%). The problematic conclusions all gave too favourable a picture of the experimental intervention.

Conclusions: Cochrane reviews have previously been shown to be of higher quality and less biased on average than other systematic reviews, but improvement is always possible. The Cochrane Collaboration has taken steps to improve editorial processes and the quality of its reviews. Meanwhile, the Cochrane Library remains a key source of evidence about the effects of healthcare interventions. Its users should interpret reviews cautiously, particularly those with conclusions favouring experimental interventions and those with many typographical errors.

Item Type: Article
Institution: The University of York
Academic Units: The University of York > Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (York)
Depositing User: Repository Officer
Date Deposited: 07 Nov 2008 18:33
Last Modified: 07 Nov 2008 18:33
Published Version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7317.829
Status: Published
Publisher: BMJ Publishing
Refereed: Yes
Identification Number: 10.1136/bmj.323.7317.829
URI: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/4860

Actions (repository staff only: login required)