Practical methodology of meta‐analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 14, Issue 19, 1995, Pages 2057-2079

  Stewart, Lesley A ^a   Michael J Clarke, ^b  

^a MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (United Kingdom)

^b Radcliffe Infirmary ^*

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; COOPERATION; DATA ANALYSIS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT CODING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW;

DATA COLLECTION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; META-ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS;

EID: 0029051722     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.4780141902     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. The Cochrane Collaboration: preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care
2. Meta‐analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference?
3. Meta‐analysis
4. Meta‐analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy in gastric cancer: a critical reappraisal
5. Identification of relevant studies for systematic review
6. Should unpublished data be included in meta‐analysis
7. Factors influencing publication of research results
8. Publication bias in clinical trials
9. Keeping posted. Why register clinical trials?–Revisited
10. Directory of registries of clinical trials
11. Obtaining data from randomised controlled trials: how much do we need in order to perform reliable and informative meta‐analyses?
12. Chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer: an overview of randomised clinical trials
13. Systemic treatment of early breast cancer by hormal, cytotoxic or immune therapy
14. Long‐term survival follow‐up in international clinical trials
15. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta‐analysis
16. Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal
17. Multiple publication of reports of drug trials
18. Reference bias in reports of drug trials
19. A comparison of results of meta‐analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts
20. Completeness of reporting trials results: effect on physician' willingness to prescribe