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

BMC Pediatrics

Research Article

Simon Bow¹  Jeffrey Klassen¹  Lisa Hartling¹  Annabritt Chisholm¹  Denise Thomson²  Lisa Tjosvold²  Terry P Klassen³  David Moher⁴ 

[1] Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;Cochrane Child Health Field, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;Cochrane Child Health Field, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;Stollery Children's Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada;

关键词: Cystic Fibrosis;    Publication Bias;    Oral Health;    Allocation Concealment;    Cochrane Collaboration;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2431-10-34

 received in 2010-01-22, accepted in 2010-05-20,  发布年份 2010

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundSystematic 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).MethodsSRs 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsWe 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.

【 授权许可】

Unknown   
© Bow et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.