Document Detail

Cochrane Skin Group systematic reviews are more methodologically rigorous than other systematic reviews in dermatology.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  17107394     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
BACKGROUND: The Cochrane collaboration aims to produce high-quality systematic reviews. It is not known whether the methods used in producing Cochrane Skin Group (CSG) reviews result in higher quality reviews than other systematic reviews in dermatology. OBJECTIVES: To determine how the methodological quality of dermatological CSG reviews published in The Cochrane Library and in peer-reviewed journals compare with non-Cochrane systematic reviews. METHODS: Two blinded investigators independently assessed review quality using the 10-item Oxman and Guyatt scale. RESULTS: Thirty-eight systematic reviews (17 Cochrane reviews published in The Cochrane Library, 11 Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals and 10 non-Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals) were examined. The Cochrane Library reviews included quality of life (11/17 vs. 1/10, P = 0.014) and adverse outcomes (14/17 vs. 2/10, P = 0.003) more often than non-Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals. Cochrane reviews published in both peer-reviewed journals and The Cochrane Library were more likely to include comprehensive search strategies (11/11 and 17/17 vs. 6/10, P-values = 0.04 and 0.01), take steps to minimize selection bias (11/11 and 16/17 vs. 3/10, P-values = 0.003 and 0.001) and appropriately assess the validity of all included trials (10/11 and 16/17 vs. 4/10, P-values = 0.04 and 0.007) than non-Cochrane reviews. Overall, Cochrane reviews published both in peer-reviewed journals and in The Cochrane Library were assigned higher quality scores by reviewers than non-Cochrane reviews (median = 6.0 and 6.5 vs. 4.5, P-values = 0.01 and 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The Cochrane Library systematic review methodology leads to higher quality reviews on dermatological topics.
A Collier; L Heilig; L Schilling; H Williams; R P Dellavalle
Related Documents :
20977994 - Finding the best examples of healthcare quality improvement in sub-saharan africa.
19880914 - Second-generation antipsychotic long-acting injections: systematic review.
10832224 - How to read a systematic review.
7659574 - Review of the reviewer.
15592174 - Tuberculosis outbreak in a low-incidence state--indiana, 2001-2004.
25324254 - Cardiac inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor: a comprehensive review of the literature.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't    
Journal Detail:
Title:  The British journal of dermatology     Volume:  155     ISSN:  0007-0963     ISO Abbreviation:  Br. J. Dermatol.     Publication Date:  2006 Dec 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2006-11-19     Completed Date:  2007-05-08     Revised Date:  2007-11-15    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0004041     Medline TA:  Br J Dermatol     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  1230-5     Citation Subset:  IM    
Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO, USA.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Periodicals as Topic*
Review Literature as Topic*
Grant Support
Comment In:
Br J Dermatol. 2007 Aug;157(2):425-6   [PMID:  17596152 ]

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Association of p53 Arg72Pro polymorphism and beta-catenin accumulation in mycosis fungoides.
Next Document:  Trade-offs between the benefits and risks of drug treatment for psoriasis: a discrete choice experim...