Table 2 Direct Subgroup Analyses
From: Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review
Study | Recall (95% CI) | Precision (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Simple versus Complex | ||||
| Â | Simple | Complex | Simple | Complex |
Adams[26] 1994 | 18 (15,21) | 52 (48,56) | 40 (35,46) | 59 (55,63) |
Bender[27] 1997 | 53 (47,58) | 65 (59,70) | -- | 78 (73,83) |
Dickerson[28] 1985a | 18 (10,26) | 29 (20,39) | 65 (45,86) | 72 (56,87) |
Dickerson[28] 1985b | 32 (15,50) | 56 (38,74) | 38 (19,57) | 53 (35,70) |
Fergusson[20] 2000 | 89 (81,97) | 88 (80,96) | 1 (1,1) | 3 (2,4) |
Marson[29] 1996 | 64 (55,73) | 86 (80,93) | 72 (63,81) | 35 (29,40) |
Simple versus Cochrane | ||||
| Â | Simple | Cochrane | Simple | Cochrane |
Brand[30] 1998a | 59 | 93 | -- | -- |
Brand[30] 1998b | 88 | 97 | -- | -- |
Fergusson[20] 2000 | 89 (81,97) | 89 (81,97) | 1 (1,1) | 7 (6,9) |
McDonald[31] unpub a | 62 (55,68) | 76 (70,82) | -- | -- |
McDonald[31] unpub b | 52 (43,61) | 91 (86,96) | -- | -- |
Complex versus Cochrane | ||||
| Â | Complex | Cochrane | Complex | Cochrane |
Fergusson[20] 2000 | 88 (80,96) | 89 (81,97) | 3 (2,4) | 7 (6,9) |
Author versus Librarian | ||||
| Â | Author | Librarian | Author | Librarian |
Kirpalani[21] 1989 | 34 (20,48) | 53 (38,67) | -- | -- |