Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Thompson, RL; Bandera, EV; Burley, VJ; Cade, JE; Forman, D; Freudenheim, JL; Greenwood, D; Jacobs, DR; Kalliecharan, RV; Kushi, LH; McCullough, ML; Miles, LM; Moore, DF; Moreton, JA; Rastogi, T; Wiseman, MJ (2008)
Publisher: Nutrition Society
Languages: English
Types: Article
Objective: Despite the increasing dependence on systematic reviews to summarise the literatuer and to issue public health recommendations, the formal assessment of the reliability of conclusions emerging from systematic reviews has received little attention. The main goal of the present study was to evaluate whether two independent centres, in two continents, draw similar conclusions regarding the association of food, nutrtition and physical activity and endometrial cancer, when provided with the same general instructions and with similar resources. Design: The assessment of reproducibility concentrated on four main areas: (1) paper search and selection; (2) assignment of study design; (3) inclusion of 'key' papers; and (4) individual studies selected for meta-analysis and the summary risk estimate obtained. Results: In total 310 relevant papers were identified, 166 (54%) were included by both centres. Of the remaining 144 papers, 72 (50%) were retrieved in the searches of one centre and not the other (54 in centre A, 18 in centre B) and 72 were retrieved in both searches but regarded as relevant by only one of the centres (52 in centre A, 20 in centre B). Of papers included by both centres, 80% were allocated the same study desing. Agreement for inclusion of cohort-type and case-control studies was about 63% compared with 50% or less for ecological and case series studies. The agreement for inclusion of 138 'key' papers was 87%. Summary risk estimates from meta-analyses were similar. Conclusions: Transparency of process and explicit detailed procedures are necessary parts of a systematic review and crucial for the reader to interpret its findings
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. World Health Organization (2005) Preventing Chronic Diseases: A Vital Investment. Geneva: WHO.
    • 2. World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (1997) Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington, DC: AICR.
    • 3. World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (2007) Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective. Washington, DC: AICR.
    • 4. Heggie SJ, Wiseman MJ, Cannon GJ, Miles LM, Thompson RL, Stone EM, Butrum RR & Kroke A (2003) Defining the state of knowledge with respect to food, nutrition, physical activity, and the prevention of cancer. J Nutr 133, 3837S-3842S.
    • 5. Egger M, Davey-Smith G & Altman D (2001) Systematic Reviews in Health Care. London: BMJ Books.
    • 6. Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke J & Chalmers I (2004) Assessing the quality of research. BMJ 328, 39-41.
    • 7. Cook DJ, Reeve BK, Guyatt GH, Heyland DK, Griffith LE, Buckingham L & Tryba M (1996) Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Resolving discordant meta-analyses. JAMA 275, 308-314.
    • 8. Jadad AR, Cook DJ & Browman GP (1997) A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ 156, 1411-1416.
    • 9. Pladevall-Vila M, Delclos GL, Varas C, Guyer H, BrugesTarradellas J & Anglada-Arisa A (1996) Controversy of oral contraceptives and risk of rheumatoid arthritis: metaanalysis of conflicting studies and review of conflicting meta-analyses with special emphasis on analysis of heterogeneity. Am J Epidemiol 144, 1-14.
    • 10. Kirkwood BR & Sterne JAC (2003) Essential Medical Statistics, 2nd ed. London: Blackwell Science.
    • 11. Linde K & Willich SN (2003) How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine. J R Soc Med 96, 17-22.
    • 12. Hopayian K & Mugford M (1999) Conflicting conclusions from two systematic reviews of epidural steroid injections for sciatica: which evidence should general practitioners heed? Br J Gen Pract 49, 57-61.
    • 13. Gomez Gras E, de Villar Conde E, Lacalle Remigio JR, Pe´rez de la Blanca EB, Reyes Dom´ınguez A, Alvarez Gil R, Pe´rez Lozano MJ & Mar´ın Leo´ n I (1999) A reproducibility and validity study of a systematic review on ischemic cardiopathy. The Study Group of the Quality of Care (GRECA). Med Clin (Barc) 112, Suppl. 1, 74-78.
    • 14. Recurrent Miscarriage Immunotherapy Trialists Group (1994) Worldwide collaborative observational study and metaanalysis on allogeneic leukocyte immunotherapy for recurrent spontaneous abortion. Am J Reprod Immunol 32, 55-72.
    • 15. Cooper M, Ungar W & Zlotkin S (2006) An assessment of inter-rater agreement of the literature filtering process in the development of evidence-based dietary guidelines. Public Health Nutr 9, 494-500.
    • 16. World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (2007) Systematic Literature Review Specification Manual - version 15. http://www.dietandcancerreport. org/downloads/SLR_manual.pdf (accessed November 2007).
    • 17. Greenland S & Longnecker MP (1992) Methods for trend estimation from summarized dose-response data, with application to meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 135, 1301-1309.
    • 18. Cheˆne G & Thompson SG (1996) Methods for summarizing the risk associations of quantitative variables in epidemiologic studies in a consistent form. Am J Epidemiol 144, 610-621.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article