ArticleBMC research notes2015
Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Eye and Vision Group Reviews.
Article in BMC research notes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Should low-quality evidence dominate high-level evidence? A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of musculoskeletal physical therapy interventions.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2021Pooled it
- Classification of Cochrane Plain Language Summaries by Conclusiveness Using Transformer-Based Models and ChatGPT: Retrospective Observational Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Observational
- Conclusiveness of Cochrane Reviews on Nursing Interventions for Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Analysis.JMA journal · 2024Review
- Conclusiveness, linguistic characteristics and readability of Cochrane plain language summaries of intervention reviews: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Comparison of Clinical Trial and Systematic Review Outcomes for the 4 Most Prevalent Eye Diseases.JAMA ophthalmology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the conclusiveness of Cochrane Eye and Vision Group Reviews (EVGRs). We tested the hypotheses that: (1) the majority of EVGRs are inconclusive; (2) most reviews state the need for further and better studies; (3) the conclusiveness of a given review is affected by the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included and the cumulative number of patients and eyes studied.
methodsA retrospective study of all EVGRs available in the Cochrane Library in June 2013. For each EVGR we recorded the number of RCTs found by the reviewers, the number of RCTs included for final analysis as fulfilling inclusion criteria, the total cumulative number of patients and eyes studied, the stated need for further and better studies, the reason stated for further studies and the type of conclusion reached by the reviewer(s). We used the Kruskal-Wallis test to determine differences between ''conclusive'' and ''inconclusive'' studies in terms of the outcome variables studied. The correlation between the number of included studies and cumulative sample size was studied using regression analysis.
resultsOut of 106 EVGRs, 52.8% were conclusive. In 83.9% of the conclusive EVGRs one treatment/strategy/drug was found to be better than the alternative. The average number of available and included RCTs was significantly higher in conclusive EVGRs (P = 0.007 and P = 0.003 respectively). The total cumulative number of patients and number of eyes studied was approximately ten times higher in the conclusive EVGRs (P < 0.001 and P < 0.015 respectively). A similar percentage of RCTs was included in both conclusive and inconclusive reviews (76 vs. 73%). The vast majority of EVGRs, whether conclusive (84%) or inconclusive (96%), stated the need for further and better studies (P = 0.042). Fifty eight percent of the EVGRs justified the need for further studies for at least two reasons. The reason that was stated the most was a need for a larger amount of RCTs (67%).
conclusionsIn approximately half of the cases, EVGRs allow the reader to reach a clinically applicable conclusion. Larger total cumulative participants, total cumulative number of eyes studied and number of RCTs performed all increase the likelihood of an EVGR to be conclusive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.