• Home
  • Published Projects
  • Registries
Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Outcome choice and definition in systematic reviews leads to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses: A case study



Key Questions Addressed
1 Key Question
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
  • Post/View

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Outcome choice and definition in systematic reviews leads to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses: A case study
Author Saldanha IJ., Lindsley K., Money S., Kimmel H.J., Smith B.T., Dickersin K.
Country
Year
Numbers

Secondary Publication Information
There are currently no secondary publications defined for this study.


Extraction Form: Extraction Form
Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
What is the PRIMARY FOCUS of the systematic review? Methodology
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the DISCIPLINE within which the systematic review topic falls? Medicine
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What was the primary HEALTH AREA addressed in the systematic review? ... Specify: Other ... Methodology
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Was the country of origin of the systematic review reported? ... Yes, the country was... ... United States
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Is this review conducted as part of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program? No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Is the systematic review registered on PROSPERO? No, the systematic review is not registered on PROSPERO.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What were the reported sources of FUNDING for the systematic review? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Were sources of FUNDING for the systematic review reported in the journal publication? Yes, reported funding source for the review
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How many Key Questions were included in this review? 1
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
How many studies were included in this review? 343
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What was/were the funding source(s)? National Eye Institute
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
If this was not a full systematic review, what was it? Methods project
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the name of the project on the SRDR Published Projects page? Outcome data reported in Cochrane Eyes and Vision reviews
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What year was the project last updated in SRDR? 2019
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Is this a Cochrane review? Yes
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What was the format of addition of data to SRDR? Manual
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Manual
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Manual
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What year was the project published to SRDR? 2019
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What month was the project published to SRDR? November
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What month was the project created in SRDR? November
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What year was the project created in SRDR? 2017
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What was the duration in months from project creation to publication in SRDR? 25
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What was the name of the EPC or Cochrane Review Group conducting the project? Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
What is the DOI of the project? https://doi.org/10.26300/cg4t-sv98
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |




Results & Comparisons

No Results found.