This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (179)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Journalology/ Peer Review/ Authorship  • Quality of Care  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Comparison of Cochrane Reviews With Articles Published in Paper-Based Journals

Alejandro R. Jadad, MD, DPhil; Deborah J. Cook, MD, MSc; Alison Jones, BA; Terry P. Klassen, MD, MSc; Peter Tugwell, MD, MSc; Michael Moher, MB; David Moher, MSc

JAMA. 1998;280:278-280.

Context.— Review articles are important sources of information to help guide decisions by clinicians, patients, and other decision makers. Ideally, reviews should include strategies to minimize bias and to maximize precision and be reported so explicitly that any interested reader would be able to replicate them.

Objective.— To compare the methodological and reporting aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published in paper-based journals indexed in MEDLINE.

Data Sources.— The Cochrane Library, issue 2 of 1995, and a search of MEDLINE restricted to 1995.

Study Selection.— All 36 completed reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and a randomly selected sample of 39 meta-analyses or systematic reviews published in journals indexed by MEDLINE in 1995.

Data Extraction.— Number of authors, trials, and patients; trial sources; inclusion and exclusion criteria; language restrictions; primary outcome; trial quality assessment; heterogeneity testing; and effect estimates. Updating by 1997 was evaluated.

Results.— Reviews found in MEDLINE included more authors (median, 3 vs 2; P<.001), more trials (median, 13.5 vs 5; P<.001), and more patients (median, 1280 vs 528; P <.001) than Cochrane reviews. More Cochrane reviews, however, included a description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria (35/36 vs 18/39; P<.001) and assessed trial quality (36/36 vs 12/39; P<.001). No Cochrane reviews had language restrictions (0/36 vs 7/39; P<.01). There were no differences in sources of trials, heterogeneity testing, or description of effect estimates. By June 1997, 18 of 36 Cochrane reviews had been updated vs 1 of 39 reviews listed in MEDLINE.

Conclusions.— Cochrane reviews appear to have greater methodological rigor and are more frequently updated than systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in paper-based journals.

From the Health Information Research Unit (Dr Jadad), Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Drs Jadad and Cook), and the Department of Medicine (Dr Cook), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario; Thomas C. Chalmers Center for Systematic Reviews, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario (Ms Jones, Drs Klassen and Tugwell, and Mr D. Moher); the Departments of Pediatrics (Mr D. Moher) and Medicine (Dr Tugwell and Mr D. Moher), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario; and Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Oxford, England (Dr M. Moher).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Assessment of the Methodologic Quality of Medical and Surgical Clinical Trials in Patients with Arthroplasty
SINGH et al.
The Journal of Rheumatology 2009;36:2642-2654.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Quality of Meta-Analyses of Genetic Association Studies: A Review With Recommendations
Minelli et al.
Am J Epidemiol 2009;170:1333-1343.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

ANGIOTENSIN-CONVERTING ENZYME INHIBITORS AND ANGIOTENSIN RECEPTOR BLOCKERS IN PERITONEAL DIALYSIS: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS
Akbari et al.
pdi 2009;29:554-561.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Meta-analysis of the effect of oral selenium supplementation on milk selenium concentration in cattle
Ceballos et al.
J DAIRY SCI 2009;92:324-342.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence-based medicine as viewed by key decision-makers of health plans in southern Brazil
Tiburi
Health Serv Manage Res 2008;21:185-191.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Using Existing Systematic Reviews in Complex Systematic Reviews
Whitlock et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2008;148:776-782.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cochrane Schizophrenia Group
Adams et al.
Schizophr Bull 2008;34:259-265.
FULL TEXT  

Usefulness of Systematic Review Search Strategies in Finding Child Health Systematic Reviews in MEDLINE
Boluyt et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008;162:111-116.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: When One Study Is Just not Enough
Garg et al.
CJASN 2008;3:253-260.
FULL TEXT  

Effect of Dosing Schedules on Anthracycline-induced Cardiotoxicity in Children with Cancer
van Dalen and Kremer
Am Soc Clin Oncol Ed Book 2008;2008:442-447.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

State of the Evidence on Acute Asthma Management in Children: A Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews
Boluyt et al.
Pediatrics 2007;120:1334-1343.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Proposed response criteria for neurocognitive impairment in systemic lupus erythematosus clinical trials
Mikdashi
Lupus 2007;16:418-425.
ABSTRACT  

The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey
Ioannidis and Trikalinos
CMAJ 2007;176:1091-1096.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Perceptions and Competence in Evidence-Based Medicine: Are Surgeons Getting Better? A Questionnaire Survey of Members of the Dutch Orthopaedic Association
Poolman et al.
JBJS 2007;89:206-215.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review
Jorgensen et al.
BMJ 2006;333:782.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Critical appraisal and positive outcome bias in case reports published in brazilian dental journals.
Oliveira and Leles
J Dent Educ 2006;70:869-874.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions: the role and activities of the Cochrane Collaboration.
Waters et al.
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2006;60:285-289.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Systematic reviews of meta-analyses: applications and limitations
Delgado-Rodriguez
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2006;60:90-92.
FULL TEXT  

Electronic primary care guidelines with links to Cochrane reviews--EBM Guidelines
Varonen et al.
Fam Pract 2005;22:465-469.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice: Dispelling the Myths
Hise et al.
Nutr Clin Pract 2005;20:294-302.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study
Moja et al.
BMJ 2005;330:1053.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

So what has the Cochrane Collaboration ever done for us? A report card on the first 10 years
Grimshaw
CMAJ 2004;171:747-749.
FULL TEXT  

Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials: A Reflection of Treatment Effect or Adverse Events?
Als-Nielsen et al.
JAMA 2003;290:921-928.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

How many Cochrane reviews are needed to cover existing evidence on the effects of healthcare interventions?
Mallett and Clarke
Evid. Based Med. 2003;8:100-101.
FULL TEXT  

Meta-Analyses in Orthopaedic Surgery : A Systematic Review of Their Methodologies
Bhandari et al.
JBJS 2003;83:15-15.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Appraising Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
Bigby and Williams
Arch Dermatol 2003;139:795-798.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Truth Survival in Clinical Research: An Evidence-Based Requiem?
Poynard et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2002;136:888-895.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Measuring the Quality of Editorial Peer Review
Jefferson et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2786-2790.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Comparison of the Quality of Cochrane Reviews and Systematic Reviews Published in Paper-Based Journals
Shea et al.
Eval Health Prof 2002;25:116-129.
ABSTRACT  

Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998
Olsen et al.
BMJ 2001;323:829-832.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Is Massage Useful in the Management of Diabetes? A Systematic Review
Ezzo et al.
Diabetes Spectr. 2001;14:218-224.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Systematic meta-review of depot antipsychotic drugs for people with schizophrenia
ADAMS et al.
Br. J. Psychiatry 2001;179:290-299.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence-Based Guidelines: Application to Clinical Practice
Scalzitti
ptjournal 2001;81:1622-1628.
FULL TEXT  

Systematic Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Methodology
Parker et al.
JBJS 2001;83:1433-1435.
FULL TEXT  

Bipolar disorder: clinical uncertainty, evidence-based medicine and large-scale randomised trials
GEDDES and GOODWIN
Br. J. Psychiatry 2001;178 :s191-s194.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The management of hypertension in Canada: a review of current guidelines, their shortcomings and implications for the future
McAlister et al.
CMAJ 2001;164:517-522.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Meeting the Challenges of Evidence-Based Policy: The Campbell Collaboration
Petrosino et al.
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 2001;578:14-34.
ABSTRACT  

Effect of Patient Reminder/Recall Interventions on Immunization Rates: A Review
Szilagyi et al.
JAMA 2000;284:1820-1827.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Helping Physicians To Keep Abreast of the Medical Literature: Medical and Philosophical Commentaries, 1773-1795
Chalmers and Trohler
ANN INTERN MED 2000;133:238-243.
FULL TEXT  

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation
Jadad et al.
BMJ 2000;320:537-540.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Should journals publish systematic reviews that find no evidence to guide practice? Examples from injury research
Alderson and Roberts
BMJ 2000;320:376-377.
FULL TEXT  

The Medical Review Article Revisited: Has the Science Improved?
McAlister et al.
ANN INTERN MED 1999;131:947-951.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evidence-based Dentistry and the Dental Research Community
Bader et al.
JDR 1999;78:1480-1483.
 

Complementary Medicine and the Cochrane Collaboration
Ezzo et al.
JAMA 1998;280:1628-1630.
FULL TEXT  

Peer Review in Prague
Rennie
JAMA 1998;280:214-215.
FULL TEXT