title: The quality of reporting might not reflect the quality of the study: implications for undertaking and appraising a systematic review.
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.
authors.affiliation: University of Sheffield, UK.
authors.forename: Chris
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Littlewood
authors.forename: Jon
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Ashton
authors.forename: Ken
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Chance-Larsen
authors.forename: Stephen
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: May
authors.forename: Ben
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Sturrock
keywords: Consort statement; Research methodology; Systematic review
references.citation: J Rehabil Med. 2009 Nov;41(11):870-80
references.pmid: 19841837
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2004 Dec;57(12):1232-6
references.pmid: 15617948
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Jul 15;34(16):1685-92
references.pmid: 19770609
references.citation: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1999 Mar-Apr;8(2):102-11
references.pmid: 10226960
references.citation: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004 Jul-Aug;13(4):417-23
references.pmid: 15220882
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Feb 15;33(4 Suppl):S33-8
references.pmid: 18204397
references.citation: BMJ. 1997 Jul 5;315(7099):25-30
references.pmid: 9233322
references.citation: BMJ. 2004 Jan 3;328(7430):22-4
references.pmid: 14703540
references.citation: JAMA. 1995 Dec 27;274(24):1942-8
references.pmid: 8568990
references.citation: BMJ. 1993 Oct 9;307(6909):899-903
references.pmid: 8241852
references.citation: Clin Rehabil. 2010 Feb;24(2):99-109
references.pmid: 20103573
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 Aug 15;34(18):1929-41
references.pmid: 19680101
references.citation: Arthritis Rheum. 2008 May 15;59(5):615-22
references.pmid: 18438933
references.citation: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Jan-Feb;18(1):138-60
references.pmid: 18835532
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Aug;55(8):783-6
references.pmid: 12384192
references.citation: J Hand Ther. 2004 Apr-Jun;17(2):152-64
references.pmid: 15162102
references.citation: J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009 Jul-Aug;18(4):652-60
references.pmid: 19286397
references.citation: Occup Environ Med. 2003 Nov;60(11):841-9
references.pmid: 14573714
references.citation: J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010 Jul;1(2):100-7
references.pmid: 21350618