Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: what about in 2011? The next appeal for the evidence‐based medicine age
View through CrossRef
AbstractRationale and aimThe aims of the Cochrane systematic reviews are to make readily available and up‐to‐date information for clinical practice, offering consistent evidence and straightforward recommendations. In 2004, we evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and found that 47.83% of them had insufficient evidence for use in clinical practice. We proposed to reanalyze the reviews to evaluate whether this percentage had significantly decreased.MethodsA cross‐sectional study of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2011) was conducted. We randomly selected reviews across all 52 Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups.ResultsWe analyzed 1128 completed systematic reviews. Of these, 45.30% concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial, of which only 2.04% recommended no further research. In total, 45.04% of the reviews reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm, of which 0.8% did not recommend further studies and 44.24% recommended additional studies; the latter has decreased from our previous study with a difference of 3.59%.ConclusionOnly a small number of the Cochrane collaboration's systematic reviews support clinical interventions with no need for additional research. A larger number of high‐quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to change the ‘insufficient evidence’ scenario for clinical practice illustrated by the Cochrane database. It is recommended that we should produce higher‐quality primary studies in active collaboration and consultation with global scholars and societies so that this can represent a major component of methodological advance in this context.
Wiley
Paulo José Fortes Villas Boas
Regina Stella Spagnuolo
Amélia Kamegasawa
Leandro Gobbo Braz
Adriana Polachini do Valle
Eliane Chaves Jorge
Hugo Hyung Bok Yoo
Antônio José Maria Cataneo
Ione Corrêa
Fernanda Bono Fukushima
Paulo do Nascimento
Norma Sueli Pinheiro Módolo
Marise Silva Teixeira
Edison Iglesias de Oliveira Vidal
Solange Ramires Daher
Regina El Dib
Title: Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: what about in 2011? The next appeal for the evidence‐based medicine age
Description:
AbstractRationale and aimThe aims of the Cochrane systematic reviews are to make readily available and up‐to‐date information for clinical practice, offering consistent evidence and straightforward recommendations.
In 2004, we evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and found that 47.
83% of them had insufficient evidence for use in clinical practice.
We proposed to reanalyze the reviews to evaluate whether this percentage had significantly decreased.
MethodsA cross‐sectional study of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2011) was conducted.
We randomly selected reviews across all 52 Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups.
ResultsWe analyzed 1128 completed systematic reviews.
Of these, 45.
30% concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial, of which only 2.
04% recommended no further research.
In total, 45.
04% of the reviews reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm, of which 0.
8% did not recommend further studies and 44.
24% recommended additional studies; the latter has decreased from our previous study with a difference of 3.
59%.
ConclusionOnly a small number of the Cochrane collaboration's systematic reviews support clinical interventions with no need for additional research.
A larger number of high‐quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to change the ‘insufficient evidence’ scenario for clinical practice illustrated by the Cochrane database.
It is recommended that we should produce higher‐quality primary studies in active collaboration and consultation with global scholars and societies so that this can represent a major component of methodological advance in this context.
Related Results
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most...
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical a...
Breast Carcinoma within Fibroadenoma: A Systematic Review
Breast Carcinoma within Fibroadenoma: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Introduction
Fibroadenoma is the most common benign breast lesion; however, it carries a potential risk of malignant transformation. This systematic review provides an ove...
Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: A systematic assessment of current methods
Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: A systematic assessment of current methods
AbstractThe search methods used in systematic reviews provide the foundation for establishing the body of literature from which conclusions are drawn and recommendations made. Sear...
EPD Electronic Pathogen Detection v1
EPD Electronic Pathogen Detection v1
Electronic pathogen detection (EPD) is a non - invasive, rapid, affordable, point- of- care test, for Covid 19 resulting from infection with SARS-CoV-2 virus. EPD scanning techno...
Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews
Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews
Abstract
Background
Along with other types of research, it has been stated that the extent of redundancy in systematic reviews has reached epidemic ...
Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview
Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview
AbstractSTUDY QUESTIONAre systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on interventions in ART concordant in their conclusions?SUMMARY ANSWERThe majority of the systematic r...
Cash‐based approaches in humanitarian emergencies: a systematic review
Cash‐based approaches in humanitarian emergencies: a systematic review
This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness, efficiency and implementation of cash transfers in humanitarian settings. The review summarises evidence from five studi...

