Forest plots in reports of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study reviewing current practice

David L. Schriger; Douglas G. Altman; J. A. Vetter; T. Heafner; David Moher

doi:10.1093/ije/dyp370

Abstract

1 min read

Forest plots in Cochrane reviews were highly standardized but some of the standards do not optimize information exchange, and many of the plots had too little data to be useful. Forest plots in non-Cochrane reviews often omitted key elements but had more data and were often more thoughtfully constructed.

Discussion(0)

No comments yet. Be the first to comment.

Related publications

Article2017

Relation of the completeness of reporting of rapid reviews to journal publication status: protocol for a comparative, cross-sectional methodological study

Adrienne Stevens, Chantelle Garritty, Kusala Pussegoda, Lisa Hartling, Lesley Stewart, Kednapa Thavorn, Andrea C. Tricco, Vivian Welch, David Moher

Article2002

A Comparison of the Quality of Cochrane Reviews and Systematic Reviews Published in Paper-Based Journals

Beverley Shea, David Moher, Ian D. Graham, Ba’ Pham, Peter Tugwell

Article2019

Age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews: a meta-epidemiological study

Patrick Liu, John P A Ioannidis, Joseph S. Ross, Sanket S. Dhruva, Anita T. Luxkaranayagam, Vasilis S. Vasiliou, Joshua D. Wallach

Article2015

PROTOCOL FOR INVENTORY OF MAPPED PLOTS IN TROPICAL FOREST

Alicia Ledo

JOURNAL OF TROPICAL FOREST SCIENCE

Article2012

Investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews: a methodologic review of guidance in the literature

Joel Gagnier, David Moher, Heather Boon, Joseph Beyene, Claire Bombardier