ArticleWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2017
The role and limitations of Cochrane reviews at the bedside: a systematic synopsis of five pediatric subspecialties.
Article in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCochrane meta-analyses provide the physician at the bedside with the most relevant, up-to-date clinical information. However, implementation of evidence-based medicine (EBM) at the bedside may be difficult for a variety of reasons. The aim of this study was to assess relevant issues and obstacles related to implementing EBM in pediatrics in real life at the bedside/cotside.
methodsWe performed five systematic literature reviews of all published Cochrane reviews in neonatology (1996-2010), pediatric neurology (1996-2010), pediatric gastroenterology (1993-2012), pediatric cardiology (2001-2015), and complementary and alternative medicine (1996-2012; CAM) in children and neonates. In all five analyses, the main outcome variables were percentage of reviews concluding that a certain intervention provides a benefit, percentage of reviews concluding that a certain intervention should not be performed, and percentage of studies concluding that the current level of evidence is inconclusive.
resultsIn all five areas of pediatrics, a substantial number of Cochrane reviews yielded inconclusive data (neonatology: 46.6%; neuropediatrics: 26.8%; pediatric gastroenterology: 27.9%; pediatric cardiology: 42.9%; complementary and alternative medicine: 66.9%).
conclusionsOur up-dated systematic synopsis reiterates the need for high-quality, sophisticated research to reduce the number of inconclusive meta-analyses in the field of pediatrics-most importantly in the field of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), neonatology, and pediatric cardiology. The realization of high-quality, clinically driven research will in turn yield more systematic reviews with a clear conclusion (e. g., in favor or against a certain intervention, or treatment modality), thus, substantively decreasing the proportion of inconclusive reviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28255743What 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.