Evaluation & the Health Professions

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shea, B.
Right arrow Articles by Tugwell, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shea, B.
Right arrow Articles by Tugwell, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 25, No. 1, 116-129 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0163278702025001008

A Comparison of the Quality of Cochrane Reviews and Systematic Reviews Published in Paper-Based Journals

Beverley Shea

Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa

David Moher

Thomas C. Chalmers Centre for Systematic Reviews and Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute

Ian Graham

Ottawa Health Research Institute

Ba Pham

Thomas C. Chalmers Centre for Systematic Reviews and Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute

Peter Tugwell

Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa

This study set out to compare Cochrane reviews and reviews published in paper-based journals. Two assessment tools were used to collect the data, a 23-itemchecklist developed by Sacks and a nine-itemscale developed by Oxman. Cochrane reviews were found to be better at reporting some items and paper-based reviews at reporting others. The overall quality was found to be low. This represents a serious situation because clinicians, health policy makers, and consumers are often told that systematic reviews represent "the best available evidence." In the period since this study, the Cochrane Collaboration has taken steps to improve the quality of its reviews through, for example, more thorough prepublication refereeing, developments in the training and support offered to reviewers, and improvements in the system for postpublication peer review. In addition, the use of evidence-based criteria (i.e., the QUOROM statement) for reporting systematic reviews may help further to improve their quality.


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CMAJHome page
J. P.A. Ioannidis and T. A. Trikalinos
The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey
Can. Med. Assoc. J., April 10, 2007; 176(8): 1091 - 1096.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
L. P Moja, E. Telaro, R. D'Amico, I. Moschetti, L. Coe, A. Liberati, and on behalf of the Metaquality Study Group
Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study
BMJ, May 7, 2005; 330(7499): 1053.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of the American Dental AssociationHome page
J. BADER and A. ISMAIL
Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry
J Am Dent Assoc, April 1, 2004; 135(4): 464 - 473.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]