The review question was clearly defined in terms of the participant, interventions, outcomes and study designs of interest. It appeared that only one electronic database was searched for published studies, so relevant evidence could have potentially been overlooked. The authors did not report using methods designed to minimise the potential for reviewer error and bias at any stage of the review process.
The quality of the included trials was not assessed, so the impact of trial quality on the findings of the review could not be determined. Established statistical techniques were used to combine trials and investigate heterogeneity and publication bias. Although some aspects of the reciew were well reported (e.g. exclusion of specific studies, participant details), other aspects of the review were inconsistently reported or missing (e.g. details of the minor bleeding meta-analysis).
The authors’ conclusions appeared to follow from the presented evidence, but given limitations in the conduct and reporting of the review, these conclusions may not be reliable.