Disagreement in Study Selection for Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Reviews
Author Information
Author(s): Frank Peinemann, Natalie McGauran, Stefan Sauerland, Stefan Lange
Primary Institution: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG)
Hypothesis
How do systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy differ in their selection of primary studies?
Conclusion
The selection of primary studies varies significantly between systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy, especially for non-randomized controlled trials.
Supporting Evidence
- The overall agreement in study selection between reviews was 96% for RCTs and 57% for non-RCTs.
- Most differences in study selection arose from variations in inclusion criteria and inter-author study classification.
- Only the IQWiG review included a meta-analysis indicating an advantage in favor of NPWT.
Takeaway
Different studies about the same treatment can pick different research papers to look at, which can lead to different conclusions. This study found that reviews on a specific wound treatment often disagree on which studies to include.
Methodology
A retrospective analysis comparing systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy by examining their study selection and methodology.
Potential Biases
Variations in inclusion criteria and reporting styles may introduce bias in the selection of studies.
Limitations
The quality of the primary studies included in the reviews was generally poor, and the evidence base on negative pressure wound therapy was insufficient.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website