Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Systematic reviews (SRs), including Cochrane reviews, are an important resource for clinicians in the practice of evidence-based health care. In a 2001 BMJ article Olsen et al. [1] found that Cochrane reviews were rated of higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews, but this study was limited to a sample from 1998. A pilot study of HIV behavioral reviews was done in 2008 which found quality was variable. The current study describes the quality of HIV prevention reviews.
Objectives: To identify and describe characteristics of published HIV/AIDS prevention SRs; and to compare Cochrane with non-Cochrane reviews.
Methods: The HIV/AIDS sensitive search strategy was combined with the search filter developed by Montori et al. [2] in PubMed and The Cochrane Library to identify systematic reviews from 1998 to February 2012. SRs evaluating prevention of HIV/AIDS were included. Two researchers independently assessed eligibility looking at titles and abstracts. Records were classified by publication year, and whether Cochrane or non-Cochrane. Methodological quality was assessed using a critical appraisal form developed by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group. It included items such as whether the review had a clearly focused question, comprehensive search strategy, and used a quality assessment tool.
Results: Searching PubMed yielded 2756 records, of which 34 were Cochrane reviews and 108 records were non-Cochrane reviews. Data was extracted from a sample of 29 non-Cochrane reviews: 27 (93%) asked a focused question; 16 (55%) investigated quality of included studies; 11 (38%) included all languages in the search strategy. In comparison, all Cochrane reviews asked a focused question; 30/34 (88%) investigated quality of included studies; 29/34 (85%) included all languages in the search strategy.
Conclusions: This study provides valuable insight into the quality and methodology used in the evidence for the prevention and HIV. Cochrane reviews met more of the quality criteria than non-Cochrane reviews.
References
1. Olsen O, Middelton P, Ezzo J, Gotzsche P, Hadhazy V, Herxheimer A, Kleijnen J, Mclntosh H. Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ 2001; 323:829–32.
2. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB for the Hedges Team. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005; 330:68–73.
Objectives: To identify and describe characteristics of published HIV/AIDS prevention SRs; and to compare Cochrane with non-Cochrane reviews.
Methods: The HIV/AIDS sensitive search strategy was combined with the search filter developed by Montori et al. [2] in PubMed and The Cochrane Library to identify systematic reviews from 1998 to February 2012. SRs evaluating prevention of HIV/AIDS were included. Two researchers independently assessed eligibility looking at titles and abstracts. Records were classified by publication year, and whether Cochrane or non-Cochrane. Methodological quality was assessed using a critical appraisal form developed by the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group. It included items such as whether the review had a clearly focused question, comprehensive search strategy, and used a quality assessment tool.
Results: Searching PubMed yielded 2756 records, of which 34 were Cochrane reviews and 108 records were non-Cochrane reviews. Data was extracted from a sample of 29 non-Cochrane reviews: 27 (93%) asked a focused question; 16 (55%) investigated quality of included studies; 11 (38%) included all languages in the search strategy. In comparison, all Cochrane reviews asked a focused question; 30/34 (88%) investigated quality of included studies; 29/34 (85%) included all languages in the search strategy.
Conclusions: This study provides valuable insight into the quality and methodology used in the evidence for the prevention and HIV. Cochrane reviews met more of the quality criteria than non-Cochrane reviews.
References
1. Olsen O, Middelton P, Ezzo J, Gotzsche P, Hadhazy V, Herxheimer A, Kleijnen J, Mclntosh H. Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998. BMJ 2001; 323:829–32.
2. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB for the Hedges Team. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 2005; 330:68–73.