Review of Systematic Reviews in Maternal Medicine
Author Information
Author(s): Sheikh Lumaan, Johnston Shelley, Thangaratinam Shakila, Khan Khalid S, Kilby Mark D
Primary Institution: Academic Unit, Birmingham Women's Hospital, University of Birmingham
Hypothesis
What are the methodological features of existing systematic reviews in maternal medicine?
Conclusion
Cochrane reviews are of better quality compared to non-Cochrane reviews, highlighting the need for high-quality systematic reviews in maternal medicine.
Supporting Evidence
- Out of 2846 citations, 68 reviews were selected for analysis.
- 39 (57%) of the selected reviews were Cochrane reviews.
- 74% of the reviews evaluated therapeutic interventions.
- 94% of reviews had a detailed search description.
- Only 25% of reviews searched without language restriction.
Takeaway
This study looked at reviews about pregnancy and found that some are really good, especially those from Cochrane, but many others need to be better.
Methodology
The study involved a search of multiple databases for systematic reviews published between 2001 and 2006, assessing their methodological quality.
Potential Biases
The absence of blinding of reviewers could introduce bias.
Limitations
Some good quality reviews using a single database may have been missed, and the focus on maternal outcomes excluded relevant studies.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p = 0.04, p = 0.001, p = 0.002, p = 0.01, p = 0.02
Confidence Interval
95% CI 1.1–381.3, 95% CI 3.7-256.2, 95% CI 1.9–16.4, 95% CI 2.1, 688.2, 95% CI 1.3–10.8
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website