Advertisement
Journal Home
Search for

Volume 61, Issue 9, Pages 857-865 (September 2008)


View previous. 4 of 18 View next.

Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews

Ralf BenderabCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Catey Buncec, Mike Clarked, Simon Gatese, Stefan Langea, Nathan L. Pacef, Kristian Thorlundg

Accepted 7 March 2008.

Abstract 

Objective

The objective of this paper is to describe the problem of multiple comparisons in systematic reviews and to provide some guidelines on how to deal with it in practice.

Study Design and Setting

We describe common reasons for multiplicity in systematic reviews, and present some examples. We provide guidance on how to deal with multiplicity when it is unavoidable.

Results

We identified six common reasons for multiplicity in systematic reviews: multiple outcomes, multiple groups, multiple time points, multiple effect measures, subgroup analyses, and multiple looks at accumulating data. The existing methods to deal with multiplicity in single trials can not always be applied in systematic reviews.

Conclusion

There is no simple and completely satisfactory solution to the problem of multiple comparisons in systematic reviews. More research is required to develop multiple comparison procedures for use in systematic reviews. Authors and consumers of systematic reviews should give serious attention to multiplicity in systematic reviews when presenting, interpreting and using the results of these reports.

a Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Dillenburger Street 27, Cologne D-51105, Germany

b Faculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Joseph-Stelzmann-Street 20, Cologne D-50931, Germany

c Research & Development, Moorfields Eye Hospital, City Road, London EC1V 2PD, UK

d UK Cochrane Centre, Summertown Pavilion, Middle Way, Oxford OX2 7LG, UK

e Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Warwick Medical School, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK

f Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah, 30 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132, USA

g Copenhagen Trial Unit, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen DK-2100, Denmark

Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Medical Biometry, Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, Dillenburger Street 27, D–51105 Cologne, Germany. Tel.: +49-221-35685-451; fax: +49-221-35685-891.

PII: S0895-4356(08)00093-0

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.03.004


View previous. 4 of 18 View next.

Advertisement