Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.

<h4>Background</h4>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 proper...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Georgina Imberger, Alexandra Damgaard Vejlby, Sara Bohnstedt Hansen, Ann M Møller, Jørn Wetterslev
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2011
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/cd95805814474ef683caa31dc587a3b4
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:cd95805814474ef683caa31dc587a3b4
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:cd95805814474ef683caa31dc587a3b42021-11-18T07:33:06ZStatistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0028422https://doaj.org/article/cd95805814474ef683caa31dc587a3b42011-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/22164288/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods/principal findings</h4>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.<h4>Conclusion/significance</h4>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 ImbergerAlexandra Damgaard VejlbySara Bohnstedt HansenAnn M MøllerJørn WetterslevPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 6, Iss 12, p e28422 (2011)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Georgina Imberger Alexandra Damgaard Vejlby Sara Bohnstedt Hansen Ann M Møller Jørn Wetterslev Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
description	<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods/principal findings</h4>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.<h4>Conclusion/significance</h4>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.
format	article
author	Georgina Imberger Alexandra Damgaard Vejlby Sara Bohnstedt Hansen Ann M Møller Jørn Wetterslev
author_facet	Georgina Imberger Alexandra Damgaard Vejlby Sara Bohnstedt Hansen Ann M Møller Jørn Wetterslev
author_sort	Georgina Imberger
title	Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
title_short	Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
title_full	Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
title_fullStr	Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
title_full_unstemmed	Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.
title_sort	statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between cochrane and non-cochrane reviews.
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2011
url	https://doaj.org/article/cd95805814474ef683caa31dc587a3b4
work_keys_str_mv	AT georginaimberger statisticalmultiplicityinsystematicreviewsofanaesthesiainterventionsaquantificationandcomparisonbetweencochraneandnoncochranereviews AT alexandradamgaardvejlby statisticalmultiplicityinsystematicreviewsofanaesthesiainterventionsaquantificationandcomparisonbetweencochraneandnoncochranereviews AT sarabohnstedthansen statisticalmultiplicityinsystematicreviewsofanaesthesiainterventionsaquantificationandcomparisonbetweencochraneandnoncochranereviews AT annmmøller statisticalmultiplicityinsystematicreviewsofanaesthesiainterventionsaquantificationandcomparisonbetweencochraneandnoncochranereviews AT jørnwetterslev statisticalmultiplicityinsystematicreviewsofanaesthesiainterventionsaquantificationandcomparisonbetweencochraneandnoncochranereviews
_version_	1718423314547867648

Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.

Ejemplares similares