Some common, fatal flaws in systematic reviews of observational studies
Jack Wilkinson1, Katie Stocking1
1Centre for Biostatistics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research, and Primary Care, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Abstract:
When evidence from randomized controlled trials about the effectiveness and safety of an intervention is unclear, researchers may choose to review the nonrandomized evidence. All systematic reviews pose considerable challenges, and the level of methodological expertise required to undertake a useful review of nonrandomized intervention studies is both high and often severely underestimated. Using the example of the endometrial receptivity array, we review some common, critical flaws in systematic reviews of this nature, including errors in critical appraisal and meta-analysis.
More Related Videos
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
08:36Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Random and Systematic Errors
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Random and Systematic Errors
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
