 |
 |
Hi Craig,
I’d be going with level 1 because for
me the inherent value of a systematic review is that you can be confident that
you have (at least in theory) all the evidence.
For that reason, a systematic review which
contains only one RCT is still higher level evidence than that one RCT alone.
I’ll be interested to hear what
others think,
Tari Turner
Senior Project Officer
Monash Institute of Health Services
Research
Monash Medical Centre
Locked Bag 29
Clayton VIC
Ph: +61 3 9594 7568
Fx: +61 3 9594 7554
From:
Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Lockwood
Sent: Friday, 3 August 2007 4:02
PM
To:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Level of evidence
Dear All,
Just had a scenario brought to my attention and hoped to benefit from your
collective wisdom.
If a systematic review with meta analysis is level 1 evidence, and
If a well designed RCT with adequate power is level 2
What is a systematic review of 2 or more RCTs that were not amendable to meta
synthesis?
Is it level 1 because they come from a systematic search and have been
narratively summarised
Or is it level 2 because although the search was systematic, narrative summary
does not increase the point estimate or power?
With thanks
Craig