Archives

Monthly Archive for: ‘November, 2016’

Another open letter to the EU Commission about the EDC Criteria

By: Paul Whaley|November 16, 20161 Comment

We are signatories to a second open letter to the European Commission, raising further concerns about the proposed criteria for classification of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). The new letter is a response to the recently-published redraft of the criteria, due to be discussed by Member States and experts this Friday 18 November. While the redrafted criteria […]

Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis | Systematic Reviews | Full Text
In this practical guide, we provide an overview of current machine learning methods that have been proposed to expedite evidence synthesis. We also offer guidance on which of these are ready for use, their strengths and weaknesses, and how a systematic review team might go about using them in practice.
Letter re: stratification of meta-analyses based on risk of bias is appropriate and does not induce selection bias - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
We read, “Stratification by quality induces selection bias in a meta-analysis of clinical trials” by Stone et al. [1] with interest. We think that the authors have misunderstood the implications of their findings and that their conclusions could mislead authors of systematic reviews.
Reporting quality in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: a systematic review: Current Medical Research and Opinion: Vol 0, No 0
Out of 7702 search results, 65 SRs were included and evaluated with the PRISMA checklist. Overall, the mean overall quality score of reported items of the PRISMA checklist was 68%. We have noticed an increasing pattern in the numbers of published SRs of in vitro studies over the last 10 years. In contrast, the reporting […]
Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate
We analyzed judgments for performance bias of 10 429 RCTs included in 718 Cochrane reviews. Overall, 1828 out of 6918 judgments (26%) for performance bias were not in line with the Cochrane Handbook and were therefore considered inadequate.
Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability
We found very high inconsistency in methods of appraising risk of attrition bias in recent Cochrane reviews. Systematic review authors need clear guidance about different categories they should assess and judgments for those explanations.
Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey
Only a small proportion of DRMAs completed protocol registration or development, and those with protocol were better reported than those not. Protocol registration or development is highly desirable.