Conclusiveness of the Cochrane reviews in gynaecological cancer: A systematic analysis

Yin, Shen; Chuai, Yunhai; Wang, Aiming; Zhang, Lanmei

doi:10.1177/0300060515574922

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, this study demonstrated that the number of participating patients and RCTs affects the ability of a CR to conclude. This result was consistent with that of previous studies (2) , (3) , (4) , (5) , (6) , (7) . However, the number of included RCTs was generally small―approximately 7.6 and 1.7 RCTs were included in the conclusive and inconclusive studies, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

“…Conversely, inconclusiveness is characterized by insufficient data (2) . According to previous studies, 45%-80% of CRs are conclusive (2) , (3) , (4) , (5) , (6) , (7) . However, even when conclusiveness is achieved, additional high-quality research is often required.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…We collected descriptive statistics on “conclusive” and “inconclusive” outcomes and analyzed the difference between these outcomes using the χ 2 test and the Mann-Whitney U -test. A p -value of <0.05 was considered significant (2) , (3) , (4) , (5) , (6) , (7) , (13) . We used EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan) and R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) (14) for statistical analyses.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conclusiveness of Cochrane Reviews on Nursing Interventions for Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Analysis

2024

JMA J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study aimed to assess the conclusiveness of Cochrane Reviews (CRs) in oncology nursing. Methods: We searched systematically for all CRs published in the Cochrane Library in the oncology nursing field between January 2014 and April 2023. We analyzed the difference between conclusive and inconclusive outcomes using the χ 2 and Mann-Whitney U -tests and identified 430 articles. However, we excluded 385 articles after reviewing their titles and abstracts. We assessed 45 full-text articles for eligibility and identified 32 articles. Of the 32 articles, we extracted 19 interventions. Results: The overall outcomes were 182 cases, with 51.6% (n = 94) and 48.4% (n = 88) demonstrating conclusiveness and inconclusiveness, respectively. Regarding conclusiveness, 28.0% (n = 51) and 23.6% (n = 43) reported that the studied interventions were effective and ineffective, respectively. We found that studies on interventions related to physical activity and yoga had significantly high rates of conclusive. Compared with inconclusiveness outcomes, conclusive outcomes involved significantly more studies ( p < 0.001) and patients ( p < 0.001). Conclusions: Ultimately, these findings reveal that in the oncology nursing field, only 51% of the main outcomes of each nursing intervention in CRs were conclusive.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conclusiveness of Cochrane Reviews on Nursing Interventions for Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Analysis

2024

JMA J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An even lower proportion of Cochrane reviews with high-quality evidence was identified in the field of orthodontics (2%). 5 Findings from previous analyses of Cochrane reviews in other medical specialties have varied, with some reporting a large proportion of conclusive reviews, 6 , 7 whereas others were more likely to be inconclusive. 8 , 9 The total number of studies and total number of included participants were associated with review conclusiveness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine

Conway

Soalheira

et al. 2017

European Journal of Anaesthesiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDThe association between the quality of evidence in systematic reviews and authors’ conclusions regarding the effectiveness of interventions relevant to anaesthesia has not been examined.OBJECTIVEThe objectives of this study were: to determine the proportion of systematic reviews in which the authors made a conclusive statement about the effect of an intervention; to describe the quality of evidence derived from outcomes in reviews that used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group system for grading the quality of evidence; and to identify review characteristics associated with conclusiveness.DESIGNCross-sectional analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews from the Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Review Group was undertaken.DATA SOURCESThe Cochrane webpage was used to identify reviews for inclusion (http://.ace.cochrane.org/).ELIGIBILITY CRITERIANew and updated versions of systematic reviews published up to 17 September 2015 were eligible. Protocols for systematic reviews were excluded.RESULTSA total of 159 reviews were included. GRADE was used in 103 reviews (65%). Of these, high-level evidence for the primary outcome was identified in 11 reviews (10%). The main reasons that quality of evidence for the primary outcome was downgraded were risk of bias (n = 44; 43%) and imprecision (n = 36; 35%). Authors of 47% (n = 75) of the total number of reviews made conclusive statements about the effects of interventions. Independent predictors of conclusiveness in the subgroup of reviews with GRADE assessments were quality of evidence for the primary outcome (odds ratio 2.03; 95% confidence interval: [1.18 to 3.52] and an increasing number of studies included in reviews (OR 1.05; 95% CI: [1.01 to 1.09]).CONCLUSIONIt was common for conclusive statements to be made about the effects of interventions despite evidence for the primary outcome being rated less than high quality. Improving methodological quality of trials would have the greatest impact on improving the quality of evidence.

show abstract

Should low-quality evidence dominate high-level evidence? A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions

Riley

Swanson

Sawyer

et al. 2020

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conclusiveness of the Cochrane reviews in gynaecological cancer: A systematic analysis

Cited by 5 publications

References 10 publications

Conclusiveness of Cochrane Reviews on Nursing Interventions for Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Analysis

Conclusiveness of Cochrane Reviews on Nursing Interventions for Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Analysis

High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine

Should low-quality evidence dominate high-level evidence? A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About