TY - JOUR
T1 - Errors in systematic reviews
T2 - An example of computed tomography screening for lung cancer
AU - Yip, Rowena
AU - Islami, Farhad
AU - Zhao, Shijun
AU - Tao, Menghua
AU - Yankelevitz, David F.
AU - Boffetta, Paolo
PY - 2014/1/1
Y1 - 2014/1/1
N2 - Systematic reviews are utilized in evidence-based medicine and are increasingly being used to help guide standards, guidelines, and clinical practice. The National Lung Screening Trial results prompted such a review of lung cancer screening literature. The review was endorsed by five major medical societies. We aimed at assessing its accuracy. Two independent groups of two reviewers reviewed the systematic review, including its source literature. Errors were placed into three major categories and tabulated: (i) selection of studies, (ii) misrepresentation of published reports, and (iii) errors in calculation and rounding. A total of 151 errors were found. There were 13 errors in selection of studies, 124 errors due to misrepresentation of published reports, and 14 errors in calculations and rounding. The extent of these errors raises concern about the credibility of the conclusions of the recent lung cancer screening systematic review. A process that allows for a thorough checking of data included in systematic reviews should be established.
AB - Systematic reviews are utilized in evidence-based medicine and are increasingly being used to help guide standards, guidelines, and clinical practice. The National Lung Screening Trial results prompted such a review of lung cancer screening literature. The review was endorsed by five major medical societies. We aimed at assessing its accuracy. Two independent groups of two reviewers reviewed the systematic review, including its source literature. Errors were placed into three major categories and tabulated: (i) selection of studies, (ii) misrepresentation of published reports, and (iii) errors in calculation and rounding. A total of 151 errors were found. There were 13 errors in selection of studies, 124 errors due to misrepresentation of published reports, and 14 errors in calculations and rounding. The extent of these errors raises concern about the credibility of the conclusions of the recent lung cancer screening systematic review. A process that allows for a thorough checking of data included in systematic reviews should be established.
KW - Computed tomography screening
KW - Lung cancer
KW - Systematic reviews
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84889256267&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e3283616290
DO - 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e3283616290
M3 - Article
C2 - 23715405
AN - SCOPUS:84889256267
VL - 23
SP - 43
EP - 48
JO - European Journal of Cancer Prevention
JF - European Journal of Cancer Prevention
SN - 0959-8278
IS - 1
ER -