Entries in Systematic Reviews (24)


Outcome Reporting Bias

And its effect on systematic review outcomes.  Study.

The reliability of systematic reviews, in particular meta-analyses they contain, can be improved if more attention is paid to missing outcome data. The availability of [core outcome sets] for specific health conditions might help with this and the concept has support from the majority of Co-ordinating Editors in [Cochrane review groups].

I seem to be coming across a number of bias in SR papers recently, as well as - not coincidentally, I'm sure - discussions re: the need for better, more consistent reporting. 


Kirkham JJ, Gargon E, Clarke M, Williamson PR. Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews? -- a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane review group. Trials. 2013 Jan 22;14(1):21. 



Some PROSPERO data (of SRs registered in their system):

PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility. (PDF)
Systematic Reviews 2013, 2(4)
Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M,
Stewart L. 


Google Scholar & Systematic Reviews

Is Google Scholar Enough for SR Searches? No

I agree.  

Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews 
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013 Jan 9;13(1)
Jean-François G, Laetitia R, Stefan D. 
PMID: 23302542 



Precision vs Recall

"The challenge facing all systematic review searchers is to balance the goal of high recall against the workload created by low precision searches."  Yes.  Balance.  I couldn't agree more.

via expert searching

Sampson, M., Tetzlaff, J. and Urquhart, C. (2011), Precision of healthcare systematic review searches in a cross-sectional sample. Res. Synth. Method, 2: 119–125. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.42


Test & Systematic Review Search

This is partially a test.  I've changed the site around and am using this to test that things still function properly.  I'll also take the opportunity to promote an SR project I was a part of: