Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
The certainty (quality) of the evidence should be presented together with effect estimates for each outcome using consistently words and expressions in the results section of a systematic review. There is a matrix suggesting wording to improve reporting consistency (see Table 1).
Objectives:
To analyze whether the results section of the Abstract of Cochrane systematic reviews is based on the certainty of evidence-effect size matrix, and to describe alternative reporting approaches used.
Methods:
We analyzed the Abstract’s results section of all intervention Cochrane reviews published between November to December 2017. We excluded updates.
Results:
At the point of submission, we had analyzed 12 reviews. Full information will be given at the Colloquium.
All reviews, reported certainty of evidence and effect estimates for primary outcomes. Five reviews (42%) did not follow the suggested wording (Table 1) for certainty of evidence, two reviews (17%) did not follow wording for effect size and two additional reviews (17%) did not provide minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for their continuous outcomes, therefore, we could not evaluate the appropriateness of the effect size wording. Examples of alternatives wordings are described in Table 2.
Conclusions:
Recent Cochrane reviews seem inconsistent with regard to reporting of results and did not follow the wording that integrates certainty of evidence and effect size completely. A more standardized form of reporting would facilitate the interpretation for users of Cochrane Reviews.
The certainty (quality) of the evidence should be presented together with effect estimates for each outcome using consistently words and expressions in the results section of a systematic review. There is a matrix suggesting wording to improve reporting consistency (see Table 1).
Objectives:
To analyze whether the results section of the Abstract of Cochrane systematic reviews is based on the certainty of evidence-effect size matrix, and to describe alternative reporting approaches used.
Methods:
We analyzed the Abstract’s results section of all intervention Cochrane reviews published between November to December 2017. We excluded updates.
Results:
At the point of submission, we had analyzed 12 reviews. Full information will be given at the Colloquium.
All reviews, reported certainty of evidence and effect estimates for primary outcomes. Five reviews (42%) did not follow the suggested wording (Table 1) for certainty of evidence, two reviews (17%) did not follow wording for effect size and two additional reviews (17%) did not provide minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for their continuous outcomes, therefore, we could not evaluate the appropriateness of the effect size wording. Examples of alternatives wordings are described in Table 2.
Conclusions:
Recent Cochrane reviews seem inconsistent with regard to reporting of results and did not follow the wording that integrates certainty of evidence and effect size completely. A more standardized form of reporting would facilitate the interpretation for users of Cochrane Reviews.