Document Detail

Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  22164288     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses often contain many statistical tests. This multiplicity may increase the risk of type I error. Few attempts have been made to address the problem of statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews. Before the implications are properly considered, the size of the issue deserves clarification. Because of the emphasis on bias evaluation and because of the editorial processes involved, Cochrane reviews may contain more multiplicity than their non-Cochrane counterparts. This study measured the quantity of statistical multiplicity present in a population of systematic reviews and aimed to assess whether this quantity is different in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We selected all the systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group containing a meta-analysis and matched them with comparable non-Cochrane reviews. We counted the number of statistical tests done in each systematic review. The median number of tests overall was 10 (interquartile range (IQR) 6 to 18). The median was 12 in Cochrane and 8 in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in medians 4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0-19.0). The proportion that used an assessment of risk of bias as a reason for doing extra analyses was 42% in Cochrane and 28% in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in proportions 14% (95% CI -8 to 36). The issue of multiplicity was addressed in 6% of all the reviews.
CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews requires attention. We found more multiplicity in Cochrane reviews than in non-Cochrane reviews. Many of the reasons for the increase in multiplicity may well represent improved methodological approaches and greater transparency, but multiplicity may also cause an increased risk of spurious conclusions. Few systematic reviews, whether Cochrane or non-Cochrane, address the issue of multiplicity.
Georgina Imberger; Alexandra Damgaard Vejlby; Sara Bohnstedt Hansen; Ann M Møller; Jørn Wetterslev
Related Documents :
22170228 - Rituximab and intravenous immunoglobulin (ivig) for the management of acquired factor v...
22122808 - Transient infantile patterned hyperpigmentation.
22054618 - Pseudopseudoseizures: conditions that may mimic psychogenic non-epileptic seizures.
17224678 - Microbial keratitis pathogens and antibiotic susceptibilities: a 5-year review of cases...
21373318 - Spinal cord toxoplasmosis as an unusual presentation of aids: case report and review of...
17542518 - Diathermy testing: a novel method with electric knife stimulation to avoid nerve injuri...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't     Date:  2011-12-02
Journal Detail:
Title:  PloS one     Volume:  6     ISSN:  1932-6203     ISO Abbreviation:  PLoS ONE     Publication Date:  2011  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2011-12-14     Completed Date:  2012-07-20     Revised Date:  2013-06-27    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101285081     Medline TA:  PLoS One     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  e28422     Citation Subset:  IM    
Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Anesthesiology / methods*
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Models, Statistical
Reproducibility of Results
Research Design
Review Literature as Topic*
Statistics as Topic*

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

Previous Document:  DNA electrophoretic migration patterns change after exposure of Jurkat cells to a single intense nan...
Next Document:  Algae as protein factories: expression of a human antibody and the respective antigen in the diatom ...