Display options
Cite
Littlewood C, Ashton J, Chance-Larsen K, et al. The quality of reporting might not reflect the quality of the study: implications for undertaking and appraising a systematic review. J Man Manip Ther. 2012;20(3):130-4doi: 10.1179/2042618611Y.0000000013.
Littlewood, C., Ashton, J., Chance-Larsen, K., May, S., & Sturrock, B. (2012). The quality of reporting might not reflect the quality of the study: implications for undertaking and appraising a systematic review. The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 20(3), 130-4. https://doi.org/10.1179/2042618611Y.0000000013
Littlewood, Chris, et al. "The quality of reporting might not reflect the quality of the study: implications for undertaking and appraising a systematic review." The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy vol. 20,3 (2012): 130-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1179/2042618611Y.0000000013
Littlewood C, Ashton J, Chance-Larsen K, May S, Sturrock B. The quality of reporting might not reflect the quality of the study: implications for undertaking and appraising a systematic review. J Man Manip Ther. 2012 Aug;20(3):130-4. doi: 10.1179/2042618611Y.0000000013. PMID: 23904751; PMCID: PMC3419569.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Man Manip Ther. 2012 Aug;20(3):130-4. doi: 10.1179/2042618611Y.0000000013.

The quality of reporting might not reflect the quality of the study: implications for undertaking and appraising a systematic review.

The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy

Chris Littlewood, Jon Ashton, Ken Chance-Larsen, Stephen May, Ben Sturrock

Affiliations

  1. University of Sheffield, UK.

PMID: 23904751 PMCID: PMC3419569 DOI: 10.1179/2042618611Y.0000000013

Abstract

The systematic review has become an increasingly popular method of synthesizing findings on a topic in order to inform clinical practice, commissioning of care, and future research. A central component of the systematic review is an assessment of study quality or risk of bias, i.e. an assessment of how near to the 'truth' the findings of the study are. While undertaking a recent systematic review, it became apparent that the outcomes of the quality appraisal process were somewhat different across systematic reviews where the same randomized controlled trials had been included. The quality of the report writing of the randomized controlled trials included was identified as one possible reason for this discrepancy. This had implications upon the conclusions drawn by the review. It is suggested that reasonable attempts to contact study authors should be made in order to inform the quality appraisal process while undertaking systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials and that the presence or absence of this process should be considered by research consumers when appraising the quality of a systematic review. This process enables a full assessment of study quality rather than simply an assessment of the quality of report writing.

Keywords: Consort statement; Research methodology; Systematic review

References

  1. J Rehabil Med. 2009 Nov;41(11):870-80 - PubMed
  2. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Dec;57(12):1232-6 - PubMed
  3. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Jul 15;34(16):1685-92 - PubMed
  4. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999 Mar-Apr;8(2):102-11 - PubMed
  5. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Jul-Aug;13(4):417-23 - PubMed
  6. BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c869 - PubMed
  7. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Feb 15;33(4 Suppl):S33-8 - PubMed
  8. BMJ. 1997 Jul 5;315(7099):25-30 - PubMed
  9. BMJ. 2004 Jan 3;328(7430):22-4 - PubMed
  10. JAMA. 1995 Dec 27;274(24):1942-8 - PubMed
  11. BMJ. 1993 Oct 9;307(6909):899-903 - PubMed
  12. Occup Environ Med. 2003 Nov;60(11):841-9 - PubMed
  13. Clin Rehabil. 2010 Feb;24(2):99-109 - PubMed
  14. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Aug 15;34(18):1929-41 - PubMed
  15. Arthritis Rheum. 2008 May 15;59(5):615-22 - PubMed
  16. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Jan-Feb;18(1):138-60 - PubMed
  17. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Aug;55(8):783-6 - PubMed
  18. J Hand Ther. 2004 Apr-Jun;17(2):152-64 - PubMed
  19. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Jul-Aug;18(4):652-60 - PubMed

Publication Types