Evidence from Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Anesthesiology is Insufficient to Support or Reject the Studied Interventions and Highlights the Need of Further ResearchReinaldo S Santos Jr1, Regina El Dib2,3, Antonio J B Pereira3, Rodrigo L Alves3, Vitor C S da Silva4 and Paulo do Nascimento Jr5*
- Corresponding Author:
- Paulo do Nascimento Jr
Department of Anesthesiology
Botucatu Medical School
UNESP, Distrito de Rubião Jr s/n, CEP 18.618-970m
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: October 06, 2016; Accepted date: November 24, 2016; Published date:December 01, 2016
Citation: Santos RS Jr, El Dib R, Pereira AJB, Alves RL, da Silva VCS, et al. (2016) Evidence from Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Anesthesiology is Insufficient to Support or Reject the Studied Interventions and Highlights the Need of Further Research. Evid Based Med Pract 2:111. doi:10.4172/2471-9919.1000111
Copyright: © 2016 Santos RS Jr, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Objective: The present study aimed to classify the evidence of the systematic reviews from the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Critical and Emergency Care Group as sufficient or not to support or reject the interventions studied and their recommendation or not for further research. Methods: All systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Critical and Emergency Care Group up to February 28, 2014, were analyzed regarding the implications of the interventions studied by each review for clinical practice and research, according to their authors’ conclusions. The analyzed values were the percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and descriptive statistics of the included studies and meta-analyses of the reviews is also shown. Results: One hundred fifteen systematic reviews were analyzed and the results were as follows: evidence likely supporting the interventions with authors’ recommendations for further research: 32.2% (95% CI 23.7-40.7); evidence supporting the interventions without authors’ recommendations for further research: 2.6% (95% CI 0.0- 5.5); evidence likely against the interventions with authors’ recommendations for further research: 6.1% (95% CI 1.7-10.5); evidence against the interventions without authors’ recommendations for further research: 1.7% (95% CI 0.0-4.0); and insufficient evidence with or without authors’ recommendations for further research: 57.4% (95% CI 48.4-66.4) and 0%, respectively. Independent of the results, 95.7% (95% CI 92.0-99.4) of the reviews suggested further research. The numbers of included studies and meta-analyses [median; mode (minimum; 1st quartile; 3rd quartile; maximum)] in the reviews were, respectively, 9.5; 4 (0; 4; 18; 737) and 6; 0 (0; 0; 12; 92). Conclusion: The majority of the systematic reviews of the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Critical and Emergency Care Group resulted in no evidence or insufficient evidence to strongly recommend or discourage specific interventions for clinical practice and their authors did recommend further randomized controlled trials to provide clear evidence in future updates of systematic reviews.