FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2783159878> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2783159878 endingPage "153" @default.
• W2783159878 startingPage "152" @default.
• W2783159878 abstract "INTRODUCTION: A recent study claimed that increasing numbers of reviews are being published and many are poorly conducted and reported (1). The aim of the present study was to assess how well reporting standards in systematic reviews published in 2014 in the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment (UK HTA) monograph series compared with the reporting in Cochrane and other “non-Cochrane” systematic reviews from the same year, as reported by Page et al. (1). METHODS: All relevant UK HTA programme systematic reviews published in 2014 were identified. After piloting of the form, two reviewers each extracted relevant data on conduct and reporting from these reviews. These data were compared with data for Cochrane and “non-Cochrane systematic reviews from 2014, as published by Page et al. (1). All data were tabulated and summarized. RESULTS: There were 30 UK HTA programme systematic reviews and 300 other systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews (n = 45). Fewer UK HTA reviews covered therapeutic and pharmaceutical topics (53 percent and 20 percent respectively) than Cochrane (100 percent and 51 percent). The percentage of HTA reviews with required elements of conduct and reporting was frequently very similar to Cochrane and much higher than all other systematic reviews: for example, availability of protocols (90 percent, 98 percent and 16 percent respectively); the specification of study design criteria (100 percent, 100 percent, 79 percent); the reporting of outcomes (100 percent, 100 percent, 78 percent), quality assessment (100 percent, 100 percent, 70 percent) and other processes; the searching of trial registries for unpublished data (70 percent, 62 percent, 19 percent); reporting of reasons for excluding studies (91 percent, 91 percent and 70 percent) and reporting of authors' conflicts of interest (100 percent, 100 percent, 87 percent). However, HTA reviews compare less favourably with Cochrane and other reviews in the assessment of publication bias and reporting overall numbers of patients in the review. CONCLUSIONS: UK HTA systematic reviews are often produced within a specific policy-making context and cover a greater variety of topics than Cochrane reviews. This has implications for timelines, tools and resources. However, they still tend to present standards of conduct and reporting equivalent to “gold standard” Cochrane reviews and are superior to systematic reviews more generally." @default.
• W2783159878 created "2018-01-26" @default.
• W2783159878 creator A5019483250 @default.
• W2783159878 creator A5046488246 @default.
• W2783159878 date "2017-01-01" @default.
• W2783159878 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2783159878 title "VP15 A Comparison Of Reporting In United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment And Other Systematic Reviews" @default.
• W2783159878 cites W2396846174 @default.
• W2783159878 doi "https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462317003099" @default.
• W2783159878 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2783159878 type Work @default.
• W2783159878 sameAs 2783159878 @default.
• W2783159878 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2783159878 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2783159878 hasAuthorship W2783159878A5019483250 @default.
• W2783159878 hasAuthorship W2783159878A5046488246 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConcept C160735492 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConcept C189708586 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConcept C21333345 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConcept C3019203764 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConceptScore W2783159878C160735492 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConceptScore W2783159878C17744445 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConceptScore W2783159878C189708586 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConceptScore W2783159878C199539241 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConceptScore W2783159878C21333345 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConceptScore W2783159878C2779473830 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConceptScore W2783159878C3019203764 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConceptScore W2783159878C512399662 @default.
• W2783159878 hasConceptScore W2783159878C71924100 @default.
• W2783159878 hasIssue "S1" @default.
• W2783159878 hasLocation W27831598781 @default.
• W2783159878 hasOpenAccess W2783159878 @default.
• W2783159878 hasPrimaryLocation W27831598781 @default.
• W2783159878 hasRelatedWork W1965897301 @default.
• W2783159878 hasRelatedWork W2011931187 @default.
• W2783159878 hasRelatedWork W2053194660 @default.
• W2783159878 hasRelatedWork W2130035612 @default.
• W2783159878 hasRelatedWork W2913695460 @default.
• W2783159878 hasRelatedWork W2968101594 @default.
• W2783159878 hasRelatedWork W3001927762 @default.
• W2783159878 hasRelatedWork W3118905577 @default.
• W2783159878 hasRelatedWork W4213245299 @default.
• W2783159878 hasRelatedWork W4280573824 @default.
• W2783159878 hasVolume "33" @default.
• W2783159878 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2783159878 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2783159878 magId "2783159878" @default.
• W2783159878 workType "article" @default.