Literature DB >> 24327125

Conclusiveness of the Cochrane reviews in nutrition: a systematic analysis.

S Cohen1, D Mandel2, F B Mimouni3, R Marom2, R Lubetzky3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/
OBJECTIVE: To assess the conclusiveness of the Cochrane Reviews (CRs) in the field of Nutrition, we tested the hypotheses that: (1) the majority of CRs is inconclusive; (2) the majority of CRs recognizes the need for further and better studies and (3) the ability to reach a conclusion is dependent on the number of studies performed and number of patients enrolled. SUBJECTS/
METHODS: We selected all 87 CRs in the field of Nutrition available in Cochrane library. Each CR was analyzed for the number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) found, number of RCTs included for analysis, number of patients enrolled, the stated need for further studies and the reason(s) for it and the conclusiveness of the CR.
RESULTS: Fifty-six out of eighty-seven CRs (64.4%) were conclusive. The average number of available articles, the percentage of articles included, the average number of RCT's retained in the analyses and the total cumulative number of patients enrolled in the studies retained for analysis were significantly higher in conclusive CRs than in non-conclusive ones. The majority of inconclusive CRs (70.9%) recognized the need for further studies, a percentage not significantly different from that found in conclusive ones (58.9%, P=0.26). The percentage of conclusive CRs was not affected by year of publication.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of CRs in Nutrition is conclusive, but most of them emphasize the need for further studies. The ability for a CR to reach a conclusion is affected by the cumulative patient sample size and number of RCT's included in the analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24327125     DOI: 10.1038/ejcn.2013.252

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr        ISSN: 0954-3007            Impact factor:   4.016


  5 in total

1.  Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature.

Authors:  J A Sterne; D Gavaghan; M Egger
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Negative results and impact factor: a lesson from neonatology.

Authors:  Yoav Littner; Francis B Mimouni; Shaul Dollberg; Dror Mandel
Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med       Date:  2005-11

3.  Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Neonatal Reviews: a systematic analysis.

Authors:  Dror Mandel; Yoav Littner; Francis B Mimouni; Ronit Lubetzky
Journal:  Acta Paediatr       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.299

4.  Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German.

Authors:  M Egger; T Zellweger-Zähner; M Schneider; C Junker; C Lengeler; G Antes
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-08-02       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.

Authors:  M Egger; G Davey Smith; M Schneider; C Minder
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1997-09-13
  5 in total
  3 in total

1.  Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Eye and Vision Group Reviews.

Authors:  Michael Mimouni; Francis Mimouni; Fani Segev
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2015-06-16

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

Authors:  Aaron Conway; Zachary Conway; Kathleen Soalheira; Joanna Sutherland
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Conclusiveness, linguistic characteristics and readability of Cochrane plain language summaries of intervention reviews: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Aleksandra Banić; Mahir Fidahić; Jelena Šuto; Rea Roje; Ivana Vuka; Livia Puljak; Ivan Buljan
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-09-10       Impact factor: 4.612

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.