How do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study

Dados Bibliográficos

ID13841925
AutoresSrinivasa Vittal Katikireddi (0000-0001-6593-9092, Evaluation of Social Interventions Programme, MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK, autor correspondente), Matt Egan (0000-0002-4040-200X, Social and Environmental Health Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK), Mark Petticrew (0000-0002-6378-5517, Social and Environmental Health Research Department, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK)
Ano2014
Volume69
Fascículo2
Páginas189-195
Data de publicação2014-12-06
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0143-005X • E-ISSN: 1470-2738
EditoraBMJ (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1136/jech-2014-204711
PMID25481532
PMCIDPMC4316857
OpenAlexW2098060885
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas12
Referências citadas36

The conclusions of the SRs, published in major journals, are frequently uninformed by the critical appraisal process, even when conducted. This may be particularly problematic for SRs of public health topics that often draw on diverse study designs

Alternative medicine · Cochrane Library · Critical appraisal · Evidence-based medicine · MEDLINE · Meta-analysis · Pathology · Publication bias · Sample size determination · Statistics · Systematic review · Health Sciences Research and Education · Medicine · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · Reliability and Agreement in Measurement