• A Collier, L Heilig, L Schilling, H Williams, and R P Dellavalle.
• Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO, USA.
• Br. J. Dermatol. 2006 Dec 1; 155 (6): 1230-5.

BackgroundThe Cochrane collaboration aims to produce high-quality systematic reviews. It is not known whether the methods used in producing Cochrane Skin Group (CSG) reviews result in higher quality reviews than other systematic reviews in dermatology.ObjectivesTo determine how the methodological quality of dermatological CSG reviews published in The Cochrane Library and in peer-reviewed journals compare with non-Cochrane systematic reviews.MethodsTwo blinded investigators independently assessed review quality using the 10-item Oxman and Guyatt scale.ResultsThirty-eight systematic reviews (17 Cochrane reviews published in The Cochrane Library, 11 Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals and 10 non-Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals) were examined. The Cochrane Library reviews included quality of life (11/17 vs. 1/10, P = 0.014) and adverse outcomes (14/17 vs. 2/10, P = 0.003) more often than non-Cochrane reviews published in peer-reviewed journals. Cochrane reviews published in both peer-reviewed journals and The Cochrane Library were more likely to include comprehensive search strategies (11/11 and 17/17 vs. 6/10, P-values = 0.04 and 0.01), take steps to minimize selection bias (11/11 and 16/17 vs. 3/10, P-values = 0.003 and 0.001) and appropriately assess the validity of all included trials (10/11 and 16/17 vs. 4/10, P-values = 0.04 and 0.007) than non-Cochrane reviews. Overall, Cochrane reviews published both in peer-reviewed journals and in The Cochrane Library were assigned higher quality scores by reviewers than non-Cochrane reviews (median = 6.0 and 6.5 vs. 4.5, P-values = 0.01 and 0.002).ConclusionsThe Cochrane Library systematic review methodology leads to higher quality reviews on dermatological topics.

3 keywords...

hide…