BACKGROUND: There is a lack of up-to-date, systematic reviews that critically assess the role and potential limitations of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and systematic reviews in neonatology. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review of all Cochrane reviews published between 1996 and 2010 by the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). Main outcome parameter: assessment of the percentage of reviews that concluded that a certain intervention provides a benefit, the percentage of reviews that concluded that no benefit was seen, and the percentage of studies that concluded that the current level of evidence is inconclusive. RESULTS: In total, 262 reviews were assessed, most of which included exclusively preterm infants (146/262). The majority of reviews assessed pharmacological interventions (145/262); other important fields included nutritional (46/262), and ventilatory issues (27/262). In 42/262 reviews, a clear recommendation in favor of a specific intervention was given, whereas 98/262 reviews concluded that certain interventions should not be performed. However, the largest proportion of reviews was inconclusive (122/262) and did not issue specific recommendations. The proportion of inconclusive reviews increased from 30% (1996-2000), to 50% (2001-2005), and finally to 58% for the years 2006-2010. Common reasons for inconclusive reviews were the small number of patients (105), insufficient data (94), insufficient methodological quality (87), and heterogeneity of studies (69). CONCLUSION: There is an ongoing need for high-quality research in order to reduce the proportion of inconclusive meta-analyses in the field of neonatology. Funding and research agencies will play a vital role in selecting the most appropriate research programs.
BACKGROUND: There is a lack of up-to-date, systematic reviews that critically assess the role and potential limitations of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and systematic reviews in neonatology. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review of all Cochrane reviews published between 1996 and 2010 by the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). Main outcome parameter: assessment of the percentage of reviews that concluded that a certain intervention provides a benefit, the percentage of reviews that concluded that no benefit was seen, and the percentage of studies that concluded that the current level of evidence is inconclusive. RESULTS: In total, 262 reviews were assessed, most of which included exclusively preterm infants (146/262). The majority of reviews assessed pharmacological interventions (145/262); other important fields included nutritional (46/262), and ventilatory issues (27/262). In 42/262 reviews, a clear recommendation in favor of a specific intervention was given, whereas 98/262 reviews concluded that certain interventions should not be performed. However, the largest proportion of reviews was inconclusive (122/262) and did not issue specific recommendations. The proportion of inconclusive reviews increased from 30% (1996-2000), to 50% (2001-2005), and finally to 58% for the years 2006-2010. Common reasons for inconclusive reviews were the small number of patients (105), insufficient data (94), insufficient methodological quality (87), and heterogeneity of studies (69). CONCLUSION: There is an ongoing need for high-quality research in order to reduce the proportion of inconclusive meta-analyses in the field of neonatology. Funding and research agencies will play a vital role in selecting the most appropriate research programs.
Authors: Leeann R Pavlek; Brian K Rivera; Charles V Smith; Joanie Randle; Cory Hanlon; Kristi Small; Edward F Bell; Matthew A Rysavy; Sara Conroy; Carl H Backes Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2021-04-21 Impact factor: 6.314
Authors: James William Harrison Webbe; James M N Duffy; Elsa Afonso; Iyad Al-Muzaffar; Ginny Brunton; Anne Greenough; Nigel J Hall; Marian Knight; Jos M Latour; Caroline Lee-Davey; Neil Marlow; Laura Noakes; Julie Nycyk; Angela Richard-Löndt; Ben Wills-Eve; Neena Modi; Chris Gale Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 5.747
Authors: Flora Shan; Sonya MacVicar; Karel Allegaert; Martin Offringa; Lauren M Jansson; Sarah Simpson; Wendy Moulsdale; Lauren E Kelly Journal: Trials Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Cían J Henry; Gergana Semova; Ellen Barnes; Isabel Cotter; Tara Devers; Aisyah Rafaee; Andreea Slavescu; Niamh O Cathain; Danielle McCollum; Edna Roche; David Mockler; John Allen; Judith Meehan; Claus Klingenberg; Jos M Latour; Agnes van den Hoogen; Tobias Strunk; Eric Giannoni; Luregn J Schlapbach; Marina Degtyareva; Frans B Plötz; Willem P de Boode; Lars Naver; James L Wynn; Helmut Küster; Jan Janota; Fleur M Keij; Irwin K M Reiss; Joseph M Bliss; Richard Polin; Joyce M Koenig; Mark A Turner; Christopher Gale; Eleanor J Molloy Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 3.953
Authors: Frances C Sherratt; Heather Bagley; Simon R Stones; Jenny Preston; Nigel J Hall; Sarah L Gorst; Bridget Young Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2020-05-06
Authors: Chris Gale; Neena Modi; Sena Jawad; Lucy Culshaw; Jon Dorling; Ursula Bowler; Amanda Forster; Andy King; Jenny McLeish; Louise Linsell; Mark A Turner; Helen Robberts; Kayleigh Stanbury; Tjeerd van Staa; Ed Juszczak Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 2.692