| Evidence-Based Health Care is becoming increasingly popular, and in some settings is influencing the direction of health-care policy. If Meta-analyses (MAs) are to continue to be useful, consideration must be given to how they are reported.;This study was carried out to: (a) assess the quality of reporting and general characteristics of paper-based MAs published from 1977 to 1995; (b) assess over time; (c) compare with Cochrane Collaboration (i.e., electronically published) MAs.;Paper-based MAs were randomly selected from a database of systematic reviews. Cochrane Collaboration MAs were randomly selected from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, 1996. Data were analyzed using univariate and multivariate approaches.;One hundred and fifty-one MAs were reviewed. The overall mean quality score of MAs published in the 'Early Years' was 3.04 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.53,3.56); 'Later Years' 3.35 (95% CI 2.83,3.87), and the Cochrane Library MAs 3.42 (95% CI 2.92,3.93).;This study reveals that there has been a trend, over time, towards improvement in the reporting quality of paper-based published MAs and that the reporting quality of (Cochrane) electronically based MAs are no different from that of paper-based MAs. |
