Clinical recommendations of Cochrane reviews in pediatric gastroenterology: Systematic analysis. Issue 1 (22nd November 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Goda, Yvonne; Sauer, Harald; Schöndorf, Dominik; Hennes, Pia; Gortner, Ludwig; Gräber, Stefan; Meyer, Sascha
• Is Part Of: Pediatrics international. Volume 57:Issue 1(2015)
• Page Start: 98
• Page End: 106
• Publication Date: 2014-11-22
• Subjects: children -- Cochrane review -- evidence‐based medicine -- gastroenterology -- meta‐analysis -- pediatrics; Pediatrics -- Periodicals; 618.92
• DOI: 10.1111/ped.12425
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1328-8067

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Systematic and up‐to‐date Cochrane reviews in pediatrics in general and in pediatric gastroenterology in particular are important tools in disseminating the best available evidence to the medical community, thus providing the physician at the bedside with invaluable information and recommendations with regard to specific clinical questions. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted, including all Cochrane reviews published by the Cochrane Review Group in the field of pediatric gastroenterology between 1993 and 2012, with regard to the percentage of reviews that concluded that a certain intervention provided a benefit, percentage of reviews that concluded that a certain intervention should not be performed, and percentage of studies that concluded that the current level of evidence was inconclusive. Results: In total, 86 reviews in the field of pediatric gastroenterology were included. The majority of reviews assessed pharmacological interventions (46/86); other important fields included prevention (15/86) and nutrition (9/86). A total of 33/86 reviews issued definite recommendations (positive, 19/86; negative, 14/86). The remaining 53/86 reviews were either inconclusive (24/86) or only of limited conclusiveness (29/86). The percentage of inconclusive reviews increased from 9% (1998–2002) to 19% (2003–2007; P < 0.05) to finally 24% (2008–2012) ( P < 0.05). The three most common reasons for the need for further research were heterogeneity of studies (26/86), small number of patients (18/86), and insufficient data (16/86). Conclusions: Further high‐quality research is necessary to increase the proportion of reviews with clear recommendations. Funding and research agencies are key to selecting the most appropriate research programs.