Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews

Last updated March 17, 2023

• #Resource

• Metadata::
  • Title: Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?
    • Tags:: #references#ref/Paper
  • Authored by:: Padhraig S. Fleming , Jadbinder Seehra , Argy Polychronopoulou , Zbys Fedorowicz , Nikolaos Pandis
  • Year: 2013
  • Publication: European Journal of Orthodontics
  • URL: https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/35/2/244/490824
  • PDF
    • Placeholder
• #lit-context
  • Focused on domain of orthondontics
  • Finding that Quality of reviews is slightly better for more recent reviews compared to older reviews (standards of quality have risen over time) is replicated by a later study, per scite
    • https://scite.ai/reports/10.1093/ejo/cjs016?page=1&utm_campaign=badge_generic&utm_medium=plugin&utm_source=generic
• #📝 lit-notes
  • #Claim Only about 20% of published systematic reviews in orthondotics are “good” by AMSTAR standards of review quality; 20% are considered “poor”! (Table 2, p.246) #synthesis
    • 
  • Quality of reviews is slightly better for more recent reviews compared to older reviews (standards of quality have risen over time)
  • Cochrane systematic reviews were substantially better than non-Cochrane reviews