Phil B.FontanarosaMD, Deputy EditorIndividualAuthorStephen J.LurieMD, PhD, Fishbein FellowIndividualAuthor
To the Editor: Dr Jüni and colleagues1 compared 25 checklists from systematic reviews.
We agree that readers should be critical of the heterogeneity of the content
and results of checklists. Therefore, empirical studies in this field are
useful. However, by using the same collection of checklists as Moher et al,2 Jüni et al portray an unfair representation
of the scientific development of research groups. Our list,3
which Jüni et al included in their analysis, was developed in 1990 and
published in 1991. Thereafter, however, we have changed and hopefully improved
our checklist, according to the new insights provided by Moher et al4 and others. This has resulted in an updated version
of our checklist, which has been published in the method guidelines for systematic
reviews within the Cochrane Back Review Group.5
The updated checklist has already been used in several protocols and reviews
in the module of the Back Review Group, as well as in related journal articles.
Assendelft WJJ, Koes BW, van Tulder MW, Bouter LM. Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials. JAMA. 2000;283(11):1421-1423. doi:10.1001/jama.283.11.1421