The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quality of Cochrane reviews: Assessment of sample from 1998.
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Objective: To assess the quality of Cochrane reviews. Design: Ten methodologists affiliated with the Cochrane Collaboration independently examined, in a semistructured way, the quality of reviews first published in 1998. Each review was assessed by two people; if one of them noted any major problems, they agreed on a common assessment. Predominant types of problem were categorised. Setting: Cyberspace collaboration coordinated from the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Studies: All 53 reviews first published in issue 4 of the Cochrane Library in 1998. Main outcome measure: Proportion of reviews with various types of major problem. Results: No problems or only minor ones were found in most reviews. Major problems were identified in 15 reviews (29%). The evidence did not fully support the conclusion in nine reviews (17%), the conduct or reporting was unsatisfactory in 12 reviews (23%), and stylistic problems were identified in 12 reviews (23%). The problematic conclusions all gave too favourable a picture of the experimental intervention. Conclusions: Cochrane reviews have previously been shown to be of higher quality and less biased on average than other systematic reviews, but improvement is always possible. The Cochrane Collaboration has taken steps to improve editorial processes and the quality of its reviews. Meanwhile, the Cochrane Library remains a key source of evidence about the effects of healthcare interventions. Its users should interpret reviews cautiously, particularly those with conclusions favouring experimental interventions and those with many typographical errors. What is already known on this topic Cochrane reviews are, on average, more systematic and less biased than systematic reviews published in paper journals Errors and biases also occur in Cochrane reviews What this study adds Too often, reviewers' conclusions over-rated the benefits of new interventions Readers of Cochrane reviews should remain cautious, especially regarding conclusions that favour new interventions The Cochrane Collaboration has taken steps to improve the quality of reviews
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Systematic reviewers sometimes draw conclusions that are too optimistic [157] or do not consider the harms equally as carefully as the benefits, although some evidence suggests these problems are decreasing [158].”
From The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009) · cites this paper as [157]
In the citing paper
“Systematic reviewers sometimes draw conclusions that are too optimistic [157] or do not consider the harms equally as carefully as the benefits, although some evidence suggests these problems are decreasing [158].”
From The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009) · cites this paper as [157]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Guyatt, G. H. (1993) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.270.17.2096 · Cited by 3,083
Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews
Mulrow, C. D. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597 · Cited by 1,677
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature
Oxman, A. D. (1994) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520170077040 · Cited by 925
The Medical Review Article: State of the Science
MULROW, C. D. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485 · Cited by 856
Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects
Stern, J. M., & Simes, R. J. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.640 · Cited by 818
Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study
Tramèr, M. R., Reynolds, D. J. M., Moore, R. A., & McQuay, H. J. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.635 · Cited by 702
Jadad, A. R., Cook, D. J., Jones, A., Klassen, T. P., Tugwell, P., Moher, M., & Moher, D. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.3.278 · Cited by 534
Guidelines for reading literature reviews.
Oxman, A. D., & Guyatt, G. H. (1988) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 492
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 1987, Proceedings of “Methodologic issues in overviews of randomized clinical trials.”, Stat Med, 6, 217
- Shea B Dubé C Moher D .Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A systematic review of checklists and scales [abstract]. VII Cochrane Colloquium, Rome, 5–9 October 1999: A40.
- Clarke M Oxman AD eds.Common errors in reaching conclusions. Cochrane reviewers' handbook 4.1.3, section 9.7. In:Cochrane Library. Issue 3.Oxford: Update Software, 2001.
- EBH calendar of events .(accessed 17 July 2001). · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Self-citationLiberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648
Self-citationLiberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 · Cited by 10,578
Self-citationLiberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 · Cited by 10,349
Self-citationLiberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Italian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2427/5768 · Cited by 3,374
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Olsen, O., Middleton, P., Ezzo, J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Hadhazy, V., Herxheimer, A., Kleijnen, J., & McIntosh, H.
- Affiliations
- Rigshospitalet (DK)
- Flinders Medical Centre (AU)
- University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
- Cochrane (GB)
- University of York (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Olsen, Ole
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2001-10-13
- Volume
- 323
- Issue
- 7317
- Pages
- 829-832
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- PMC
- PMC57800
- OpenAlex
- W2154762721
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 17.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
- DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- review quality, systematic review methodology, reporting quality, editorial quality, Cochrane Library, health interventions
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Bias, Evidence-Based Medicine, Databases as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
