Impact of Updating on Systematic Reviews
Author Information
Author(s): Shea Beverley, Boers Maarten, Grimshaw Jeremy M, Hamel Candyce, Bouter Lex M
Primary Institution: Community Information and Epidemiological Technologies (CIET), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Hypothesis
Does updating improve the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews?
Conclusion
The overall quality of Cochrane systematic reviews is fair-to-good, with some improvements in reporting quality but no overall improvement in methodological quality after updating.
Supporting Evidence
- Updated reviews showed a significant improvement of 18.9% in whether conclusions were supported by data.
- Quality of reporting improved in areas such as data sources and review methods.
- Methodological quality remained unchanged despite some improvements in reporting.
Takeaway
This study looked at whether updating systematic reviews makes them better. It found that while some parts got better, overall quality didn't really change.
Methodology
The study compared original and updated Cochrane systematic reviews using the OQAQ and QUOROM assessment tools.
Limitations
The study noted practical weaknesses in the assessment tools used, including their length and the lack of guidance for some questions.
Statistical Information
P-Value
0.01
Confidence Interval
95% CI
Statistical Significance
p<0.01
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website