IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0028422.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Statistical Multiplicity in Systematic Reviews of Anaesthesia Interventions: A Quantification and Comparison between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Georgina Imberger
  • Alexandra Damgaard Vejlby
  • Sara Bohnstedt Hansen
  • Ann M Møller
  • Jørn Wetterslev

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews with meta-analyses often contain many statistical tests. This multiplicity may increase the risk of type I error. Few attempts have been made to address the problem of statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews. Before the implications are properly considered, the size of the issue deserves clarification. Because of the emphasis on bias evaluation and because of the editorial processes involved, Cochrane reviews may contain more multiplicity than their non-Cochrane counterparts. This study measured the quantity of statistical multiplicity present in a population of systematic reviews and aimed to assess whether this quantity is different in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Methods/Principal Findings: We selected all the systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group containing a meta-analysis and matched them with comparable non-Cochrane reviews. We counted the number of statistical tests done in each systematic review. The median number of tests overall was 10 (interquartile range (IQR) 6 to 18). The median was 12 in Cochrane and 8 in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in medians 4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0–19.0). The proportion that used an assessment of risk of bias as a reason for doing extra analyses was 42% in Cochrane and 28% in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in proportions 14% (95% CI −8 to 36). The issue of multiplicity was addressed in 6% of all the reviews. Conclusion/Significance: Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews requires attention. We found more multiplicity in Cochrane reviews than in non-Cochrane reviews. Many of the reasons for the increase in multiplicity may well represent improved methodological approaches and greater transparency, but multiplicity may also cause an increased risk of spurious conclusions. Few systematic reviews, whether Cochrane or non-Cochrane, address the issue of multiplicity.

Suggested Citation

  • Georgina Imberger & Alexandra Damgaard Vejlby & Sara Bohnstedt Hansen & Ann M Møller & Jørn Wetterslev, 2011. "Statistical Multiplicity in Systematic Reviews of Anaesthesia Interventions: A Quantification and Comparison between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(12), pages 1-7, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0028422
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028422
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028422
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028422&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0028422?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, 2013. "Improving Causal Inferences in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1762-1771, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0028422. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.