The art and science of study identification: a comparative analysis of two systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) form the foundation for guidelines and evidence-based policy in medicine and public health. Although similar systematic reviews may include non-identical sets of studies, and it is recognized that different sets of studies may lead to different conclusions, little work has been published on why SR study cohorts differ.

Methods

We took advantage of concurrent publication of two SRs on the same topic - prevention of child exposure to tobacco smoke - to understand why study cohorts differed in the two reviews. We identified all studies included in just one review, investigated validity of specified reasons for exclusions, and, using database records, explored reasons for study non-identification. We assessed review methods and discordancy, an

SUBMITTER: Rosen L 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4766738 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature