ArticleEuropean journal of anaesthesiology2017
High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Medicine.
Article in European journal of anaesthesiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Vaccination for the prevention of equine herpesvirus-1 disease in domesticated horses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of veterinary internal medicinePooled it
- Designing Implementable Deprescribing Recommendations: A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Professional Perspectives.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Classification of Cochrane Plain Language Summaries by Conclusiveness Using Transformer-Based Models and ChatGPT: Retrospective Observational Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Observational
- Core concepts in statistics and research methods. Part 5: systematic review and meta-analysis.BJA education · 2026Review
- Methodologies for network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in pain, anaesthesia, and perioperative medicine: a narrative review.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Review
- Accelerating evidence synthesis for safety assessment through ClinicalTrials.gov platform: a feasibility study.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Certainty of Evidence Assessment in Systematic Reviews Published by High-Impact Sports Science Journals: A Meta-epidemiological Study.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Problems With O'Connell et al, "Implanted Spinal Neuromodulation Interventions for Chronic Pain in Adults" (Cochrane Review).Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2023Article
- Strong recommendations from low certainty evidence: a cross-sectional analysis of a suite of national guidelines.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Automating Quality Assessment of Medical Evidence in Systematic Reviews: Model Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Article
- Why most published meta-analysis findings are false.Techniques in coloproctology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe association between the quality of evidence in systematic reviews and authors' conclusions regarding the effectiveness of interventions relevant to anaesthesia has not been examined.
objectiveThe objectives of this study were: to determine the proportion of systematic reviews in which the authors made a conclusive statement about the effect of an intervention; to describe the quality of evidence derived from outcomes in reviews that used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group system for grading the quality of evidence; and to identify review characteristics associated with conclusiveness.
designCross-sectional analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews from the Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Emergency Review Group was undertaken. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane webpage was used to identify reviews for inclusion (http://.ace.cochrane.org/). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: New and updated versions of systematic reviews published up to 17 September 2015 were eligible. Protocols for systematic reviews were excluded.
resultsA total of 159 reviews were included. GRADE was used in 103 reviews (65%). Of these, high-level evidence for the primary outcome was identified in 11 reviews (10%). The main reasons that quality of evidence for the primary outcome was downgraded were risk of bias (n = 44; 43%) and imprecision (n = 36; 35%). Authors of 47% (n = 75) of the total number of reviews made conclusive statements about the effects of interventions. Independent predictors of conclusiveness in the subgroup of reviews with GRADE assessments were quality of evidence for the primary outcome (odds ratio 2.03; 95% confidence interval: [1.18 to 3.52] and an increasing number of studies included in reviews (OR 1.05; 95% CI: [1.01 to 1.09]).
conclusionIt was common for conclusive statements to be made about the effects of interventions despite evidence for the primary outcome being rated less than high quality. Improving methodological quality of trials would have the greatest impact on improving the quality of evidence.
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.