systematic cochrane reviews in neonatology: a critical appraisal

Clicks: 251
ID: 183600
2013
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #57 of 111 articles by views in regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : rtp

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
There is a lack of up-to-date, systematic reviews that critically assess the role and potential limitations of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and systematic reviews in neonatology. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review of all Cochrane reviews published between 1996 and 2010 by the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG). Main outcome parameter: assessment of the percentage of reviews that concluded that a certain intervention provides a benefit, the percentage of reviews that concluded that no benefit was seen, and the percentage of studies that concluded that the current level of evidence is inconclusive. Results: In total, 262 reviews were assessed, most of which included exclusively preterm infants (146/262). The majority of reviews assessed pharmacological interventions (145/262); other important fields included nutritional (46/262), and ventilatory issues (27/262). In 42/262 reviews, a clear recommendation in favor of a specific intervention was given, whereas 98/262 reviews concluded that certain interventions should not be performed. However, the largest proportion of reviews was inconclusive (122/262) and did not issue specific recommendations. The proportion of inconclusive reviews increased from 30% (1996–2000), to 50% (2001–2005), and finally to 58% for the years 2006–2010. Common reasons for inconclusive reviews were the small number of patients (105), insufficient data (94), insufficient methodological quality (87), and heterogeneity of studies (69). Conclusion: There is an ongoing need for high-quality research in order to reduce the proportion of inconclusive meta-analyses in the field of neonatology. Funding and research agencies will play a vital role in selecting the most appropriate research programs.
Reference Key
willhelm2013pediatricssystematic Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Christiane Willhelm, Wolfgang Girisch, Sven Gottschling, Stefan Gräber, Holger Wahl, Sascha Meyer
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : rtp
Year 2013
DOI
10.1016/j.pedneo.2013.03.002
URL
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875957213000375
Keywords
meta-analysis evidence-based medicine

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.