📓 content/R- Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews.md by @scalingsynthesis ☆

Metadata::
- Title: Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in leading orthodontic journals: a quality paradigm?
  - Tags:: #references#ref/Paper
- Authored by:: Padhraig S. Fleming , Jadbinder Seehra , Argy Polychronopoulou , Zbys Fedorowicz , Nikolaos Pandis
- Year: 2013
- Publication: European Journal of Orthodontics
- URL: https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/35/2/244/490824
- PDF
  - Placeholder
#lit-context
- Focused on domain of orthondontics
- Finding that Quality of reviews is slightly better for more recent reviews compared to older reviews (standards of quality have risen over time) is replicated by a later study, per scite
  - https://scite.ai/reports/10.1093/ejo/cjs016?page=1&utm_campaign=badge_generic&utm_medium=plugin&utm_source=generic
#[[📝 lit-notes]]
- #Claim Only about 20% of published [[systematic review]]s in orthondotics are "good" by [[AMSTAR standards of review quality]]; 20% are considered "poor"! (Table 2, p.246) #synthesis
  - ⥅ [[https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/firescript-577a2.appspot.com/o/imgs%2Fapp%2Fmegacoglab%2Fb_73-bHxFp.png?alt=media&token=f7c204cc-c570-4561-852e-62b83f9f4f11]]
- Quality of reviews is slightly better for more recent reviews compared to older reviews (standards of quality have risen over time)
- [[Cochrane systematic reviews]] were substantially better than non-Cochrane reviews