Frequency of equivocation in surgical meta-evidence: a review of systematic reviews within IBD literature

BMJ Open. 2017 Dec 19;7(12):e018715. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018715.

Abstract

Objective: To assess the level of equivocation among level 1 evidence in ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease and determine whether any predisposing factors are present.

Method: MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL and Cochrane were searched from 2006 to 2017. Papers were scored using AMSTAR and categorised into surgical (S), medical (M) or medical and surgical (MS) groups. The ability of each paper to make a recommendation and conclusiveness in doing so was recorded.

Results: 278 papers were assessed. 82% (n=227) could make a recommendation, 18% (n=51) could not. There was a significant difference in ability to provide a recommendation between S and M (P=0.003) but not MS and M (P=0.022) nor S and MS (P=0.79). Where a recommendation was made, S papers were more likely to be tempered than M papers (P=0.014) but not MS papers (P=0.987).

Conclusions: Surgical meta-evidence within the inflammatory bowel disease domain is more than twice as likely as medical meta-evidence to be unable to provide a recommendation for clinical practice. Where a recommendation was made, surgical reviews were twice as likely to temper their conclusion.

Keywords: inflammatory bowel disease; surgery.

Publication types

  • Review

MeSH terms

  • Biomedical Research / standards
  • Data Interpretation, Statistical*
  • Decision Making
  • Evidence-Based Practice
  • Humans
  • Inflammatory Bowel Diseases / surgery*
  • Inflammatory Bowel Diseases / therapy
  • Meta-Analysis as Topic*
  • Publications / statistics & numerical data*
  • Systematic Reviews as Topic