{"id":96,"date":"2021-05-22T23:38:19","date_gmt":"2021-05-23T03:38:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rickyturgeon\/?post_type=chapter&p=96"},"modified":"2022-01-12T23:30:43","modified_gmt":"2022-01-13T04:30:43","slug":"results-of-the-systematic-review-i-e-which-trials-were-included","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/rickyturgeon\/chapter\/results-of-the-systematic-review-i-e-which-trials-were-included\/","title":{"raw":"Results of the systematic review","rendered":"Results of the systematic review"},"content":{"raw":"The quality of the [pb_glossary id=\"1099\"]systematic review[\/pb_glossary] depends both on the quality of the individual studies and the aggregate characteristics of these studies. If the aggregate results are missing studies, contain predominantly poorly conducted studies, or are highly [pb_glossary id=\"107\"]heterogeneous[\/pb_glossary] then this will likely warrant lower confidence in the results.\r\n

Checklist Questions<\/h1>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Do all inclusions & exclusions of trials make sense?<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Are you aware of any relevant studies that were not identified\/included in this review?<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Did reviewers adequately assess individual trials for risk of [pb_glossary id=\"193\"]bias[\/pb_glossary]?<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Was each component reported separately, or summarized with a composite quality score?<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
Are there any differences between studies that should preclude [pb_glossary id=\"1101\"]meta-analysis[\/pb_glossary]?<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n

Risk of bias<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>with<\/span><\/span>in trials (internal validity): Did reviewers adequately assess for (& report) risk of bias?<\/span><\/span><\/h1>\r\nRisk of [pb_glossary id=\"193\"]bias[\/pb_glossary] should be evaluated by using a tool that is specific to [pb_glossary id=\"704\"]RCTs[\/pb_glossary]. The Cochrane risk of bias tool (version 1 (Higgins JPT et al.<\/a> 2011) or 2 (Sterne JAC et al.<\/a> 2019)) evaluates the risk of individual trial [pb_glossary id=\"193\"]biases[\/pb_glossary] and offers the most transparent assessment of trial [pb_glossary id=\"105\"]internal validity[\/pb_glossary] (see NERDCAT-RCT<\/a> for more information regarding [pb_glossary id=\"105\"]internal validity[\/pb_glossary]). ROBIS-I (Sterne JA et al.<\/a>) is a similar tool available for appraising risk of [pb_glossary id=\"193\"]bias[\/pb_glossary] in observational trials.\r\n

Quality Scores<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n\u201cQuality scores\u201d such as the Jadad score are more closely related to reporting quality than methodological issues, and lead to wide variability in conclusions on \u201cquality\u201d based on the score used. In particular, the Jadad score is considered obsolete and is a poor measure of risk of [pb_glossary id=\"193\"]bias[\/pb_glossary].\r\n

Methodological & clinical heterogeneity: Is it appropriate to perform a meta-analysis?<\/span><\/span><\/h1>\r\n