Mitigating Disputes Originated by Multiple Discordant Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: A Survey of Methodologists and Clinicians.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Overlapping systematic reviews (SRs) are increasingly frequent in the medical literature. They can easily generate discordant evidence, as estimates of effect sizes and their interpretation might differ from one source to another.

Objective

To analyze how methodologists and clinicians make a decision when faced with discordant evidence formalized in structured tables.

Methods

We conducted a 16-item survey exploring how methodologists and clinicians would react when presented with multiple Summary of Findings (SoF) tables (generated using the GRADE tool) derived from 4 overlapping and discordant SRs and meta-analyses on thrombolytic therapy for intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism. SoF tables reported 4 different magnitudes of effects and overall certainty.

SUBMITTER: Puljak L 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9051432 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature