a comparison of statistical methods for identifying out-of-date systematic reviews比较的统计方法确定过时的系统评价.pdfVIP

A Comparison of Statistical Methods for Identifying Out- of-Date Systematic Reviews 1 1 2,3 4 1 Porjai Pattanittum , Malinee Laopaiboon *, David Moher , Pisake Lumbiganon , Chetta Ngamjarus 1 Department of Biostatistics and Demography, Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 2 Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 3 Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand Abstract Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) can provide accurate and reliable evidence, typically about the effectiveness of health interventions. Evidence is dynamic, and if SRs are out-of-date this information may not be useful; it may even be harmful. This study aimed to compare five statistical methods to identify out-of-date SRs. Methods: A retrospective cohort of SRs registered in the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group (CPCG), published between 2008 and 2010, were considered for inclusion. For each eligible CPCG review, data were extracted and ‘‘3-years previous’’ meta-analyses were assessed for the need to update, given the data from the most recent 3 years. Each of the five statistical methods was used, with random effects analyses throughout the study. Results: Eighty reviews were included in this study; most were in the area of induction of labour. The numbers of reviews identified as being out-of-date using the Ottawa, recursive cumulative meta-analysis (CMA), and Barrowman methods were 34, 7, and 7 respectively. No reviews were identified as being out-of-date