
This is a very important article, published in the most recent PLoS Medicine – a rising medical journal (that one day I believe would be as important as Lancet and Jama). The journal is using open access format – so that anybody on the planet could access important medical information for free!
The article itself, written by Canadian researchers from Ottawa, led by Dr. David Moher – “Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews” is extremely important and interesting.
The editorial piece for that issue – “Many Reviews Are Systematic but Some Are More Transparent and Completely Reported than Others” has a good summary of the findings:
Some of them include:
“There were clear differences in the quality of reporting between Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs…”
“The quality of reporting in many of the SRs was disappointing. Despite the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration and the QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses) initiative [2], important items were frequently missing, again mostly from non-Cochrane reviews. ”
“It is Cochrane policy that published reviews should be regularly updated. One-third of the CDSR reviews in Moher’s sample were in fact updates. However, updating is uncommon elsewhere; in the Moher sample, only 2% of non-Cochrane reviews were updates. Related to this issue is the observation that outside of the Cochrane Collaboration none of the reviews were registered with a central body. Hence, it would be hard to locate and access updates even if they were done.”
In my workshops and teachings , I am frequently saying the Systematic Reviews are among the highest level of evidence in health sciences. David Moher’s study shows us that not always and not all reviews are the same.
Extremely interesting! I encourage you all to take a thorough look into this article – it is free full text!!
Viva to open access π
** Photo by midnightvelvet59






