Empty reviews?

CDPLPG

CDPLPG Reviews

• 15 empty reviews

‘Parturient montes nasceter ridiculus mus’

• Position on whether or not to referencing excluded studies or any other kind of study in the Discussion?

• An interesting project, but…

Some puzzles

• What is the worry about variation?

• Why do incidence and prevalence matter?

• What do we learn from this?

• Updates: are empty reviews different?

• How do they differ, across what parameters?

• Consistency is not the same as quality

• Guidelines might be a good idea, but not clear about the ‘value added’ of these data

• The challenges are upstream, starting with the inclusion criteria.

CDPLPG

• Reasons for empty reviews:– Inclusion criteria– Predominance of other treatment controls– Dearth of research (often cinderella topics)– NOT outcomes or outcome measures

• The important issue is how empty reviews are being reported

• Two options rather than four

Of the Montayn whiche shoke

Ryght so it happeth / that he that menaceth hath drede and is ferdfull / wherof Esope reherceth to vs suche a fable Of a hylle whiche beganne to tremble and shake by cause of the molle whiche delved hit / And whanne the folke sawe that the erthe beganne thus to shake / they were sore aferd and dredeful / and durst not wel come ne approche the hylle / But after whanne they were come nyghe to the Montayne / & knewe how the molle caused this hylle shakynge / theyr doubte and drede were converted unto Joye / and beganne alle to lawhe /And therfore men ought not to doubte al folk whiche ben of grete wordes and menaces / For somme menacen that haue grete doubte