Cochrane Interactive Learning: module 8 - reporting the review

  Standard Rationale and elaboration Resources
R100 Discussion headings Highly desirable  
  Include the standard RevMan headings when writing the Discussion. Five standard headings are included in RevMan (‘Summary of main results’, ‘Overall completeness and applicability of evidence’, ‘Certainty of the evidence’, ‘Potential biases in the review process, ‘Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews’). See Handbook Section III.3.5
R101 Limitations Mandatory  
  Discuss limitations of the review at study and outcome level (e.g. regarding risk of bias), and at review level (e.g. incomplete identification of studies, reporting bias). 

Review authors must explicitly state the limitations of their review. One aspect that is easily overlooked is that of adverse effects. In particular, if the review methods do not allow for detection of serious or rare adverse events, or both, the review authors must explicitly state this as a limitation. Additional considerations here include currency and completeness of the search, completeness of data collection processes, assumptions made regarding classification of interventions, outcomes or subgroups, and methods used to account for missing data.

MECIR conduct standard 73: Consider the potential impact of non-reporting biases on the results of the review or the meta-analyses it contains.

See Handbook Section 13.4


Section info
Describe change
R100, column 3: Quality -changed to- Certainty

R100: See Handbook 4.5 -changed to- See Handbook (version 6) Section III.3.5
R101: MECIR conduct standard 74 -changed to- MECIR conduct standard 73
R101: Consider the potential impact of reporting biases -changed to- Consider the potential impact of non-reporting biases
R101: See Handbook (version 6) Section 13.4 ADDED

18/03/2021: removed (version 6) from all references to the Handbook as all references are to the most current version of the Handbook
Change date
18 March 2021