Literature DB >> 25870179

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

Shande Yin1, Yunhai Chuai1, Aiming Wang1, Lanmei Zhang2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the conclusiveness of Cochrane reviews in the field of gynaecological cancer.
METHODS: The Cochrane Library was searched for reviews regarding gynaecological cancer published between 1 January 2000 and 1 November 2014. Data were extracted from each paper and the conclusiveness of each review was assessed.
RESULTS: The study included 66 reviews, 41 (62.1%) of which were conclusive. Of these, 58 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 37 (63.8%) of which were conclusive. Conclusive reviews of RCTs included significantly more patients than inconclusive reviews, but there was no difference in the number of included studies. Of the eight reviews of nonrandomized studies, four (50.0%) were conclusive. The majority of reviews recognized the need for additional studies.
CONCLUSIONS: In the field of gynaecological cancer, reviews are more likely to be conclusive when they include RCTs, as well as large numbers of patients.
© The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gynaecological cancer; Nonrandomised study; Randomized clinical trial; Systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25870179     DOI: 10.1177/0300060515574922

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Int Med Res        ISSN: 0300-0605            Impact factor:   1.671


  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.