Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Pediatrics and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Correspondence

Reporting and methodologic quality of Cochrane Neonatal review group systematic reviews

Khalid Al Faleh12* and Mohammed Al-Omran12

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Pediatrics, King Khalid University Hospital, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

2 Department of Surgery, King Khalid University Hospital, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Pediatrics 2009, 9:38  doi:10.1186/1471-2431-9-38

Published: 17 June 2009

Abstract

Background

The Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG) has achieved a lot with limited resources in producing high quality systematic reviews to assist clinicians in evidence-based decision-making. A formal assessment of published CNRG systematic reviews has not been undertaken; we sought to provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality of systematic reviews (both methodologic and reporting quality) published in CNRG.

Methods

We selected a random sample of published CNRG systematic reviews. Items of the QUOROM statement were utilized to assess quality of reporting, while items and total scores of the Oxman-Guyatt Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) were used to assess methodologic quality. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. A Student t-test was used to compare quality scores pre- and post-publication of the QUOROM statement.

Results

Sixty-one systematic reviews were assessed. Overall, the included reviews had good quality with minor flaws based on OQAQ total scores (mean, 4.5 [0.9]; 95% CI, 4.27–4.77). However, room for improvement was noted in some areas, such as the title, abstract reporting, a priori plan for heterogeneity assessment and how to handle heterogeneity in case it exists, and assessment of publication bias. In addition, reporting of agreement among reviewers, documentation of trials flow, and discussion of possible biases were addressed in the review process. Reviews published post the QUOROM statement had a significantly higher quality scores.

Conclusion

The systematic reviews published in the CNRG are generally of good quality with minor flaws. However, efforts should be made to improve the quality of reports. Readers must continue to assess the quality of published reports on an individual basis prior to implementing the recommendations.