ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2022
Quality of the Systematic Reviews in Cochrane Gynecological Cancer Group and Their Understudied RCTs.
Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2022. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Gynecological cancers are common neoplasms in clinical settings with a high impact on the economy of communities. The medical literature is an essential resource to guide clinical decision-making, and misconduct in researches undermines the credibility and integrity of research in general. We aimed to evaluate the quality of Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews and their understudies RCTS among the different biases dimensions. Methods: This cross-sectional analytical study was performed on 118 systematic reviews published by the Cochrane gynecological cancers Group up to June 2021. The risk of bias was assessed in each Cochrane survey using the Joanna Bridges Institute (JBI) critical assessment tool consisting of 11 questions. The JBI checklist for systematic reviews and research syntheses is available at https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools. After a systematic critical evaluation of the reviews and meta-analysis, we extracted a different bias from all of their understudied RCTs examined in these systematic reviews, which were evaluated by systematic review authors using a standard bias risk tool developed by the Cochrane Group. Results: Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews had high quality based on appraise results using the JBI appraisal checklist. In addition, all of the included studies used PRISMA standards for reporting their results. However, in their understudied RCTs, the most prevalent risk of bias was unclear selection bias (allocation concealment) and performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel). Also, the highest risk of bias was blinding participants and personnel (performance bias) and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias). Our results showed that the lowest risk of bias was incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) and random sequence generation (selection bias). Conclusion: Although most Cochrane gynecological cancers reviews had high quality, unclear performance bias was the highest in their understudied RCTs, indicating structural deficiencies. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13224-022-01655-6.
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.