Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement

Lancet

Volumn 354, Issue 9193, 1999, Pages 1896-1900

  Moher, David ^a   Cook, Deborah J ^b   Eastwood, Susan ^c   Olkin, Ingram ^d   Rennie, Drummond ^e   Stroup, Donna F ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e JAMA   (United States)

^f CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW;

EID: 0033610734     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Mulrow C.D. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 106:1987;485-488.
2. Cook D.J., Mulrow C., Haynes R.B. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 126:1997;376-380.
3. Cook D.J., Sackett D.L., Spitzer W. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 48:1995;167-171.
4. Deeks, J., Glanville, J., Sheldon, T. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness CRD guidelines for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. CRD report no 4. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, 1996.
5. Chalmers I., Haynes R.B. Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Chalmers I., Altman D.G. Systematic reviews. 1995;86-95 BMJ Publishing Group, London.
6. Bero L., Rennie D. The Cochrane Collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA. 274:1995;1935-1938.
7. Huston P. The Cochrane Collaboration helping unravel tangled web woven by international research. Can Med Assoc J. 154:1996;1389-1392.
8. Sacks H.S., Berrier J., Reitman D., Ancona-Berk V.A., Chalmers T.C. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 316:1987;450-455.
9. Sacks H.S., Reitman D., Pagano D., Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: an update. Mt Sinai J Med. 63:1996;216-224.
10. Mulrow, C.D., Oxman, A.D., eds. Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. In: The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CDROM]. Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration. Update Software: 1994, issue 4.
11. Oxman A.D., Cook D.J., Guyatt G.H. Users' guides to the medical literature: VI, how to use an overview. JAMA. 272:1994;1367-1371.
12. Klassen T.P., Jadad A.R., Moher D. Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: 1, getting started. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 152:1998;700-704.
13. L'Abbé K.A., Detsky A.S., O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med. 107:1987;224-233.
14. Olkin I. A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiol. 140:1984;287-288.
15. Olkin I. Statistical and theoretical considerations in meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 48:1995;133-146.
16. Guyatt G.H., Sackett D.L., Sinclair J., Hayward R., Cook D.J., Cook R.J. Users' guides to the medical literature: IX, a method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA. 274:1995;1800-1804.
17. Jadad A.R., Cook D.J., Browman G. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. Can Med Assoc J. 156:1997;1411-1416.
18. LeLorier J., Gregroire G., Benhaddad A., Lapierre J., Derderian F. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 337:1997;536-542.
19. Shea, B., Dubé, C., Moher, D. Assessing the quality of reports of meta-analyses: a systematic review of scales and checklists. In: Egger, M., Davey, Smith, G., Altman, D.G. Systematic reviews, 2nd edn. London: BMJ Publishing Group (in press).
20. A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 272:1994;1926-1931.
21. Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature. Checklist of information for inclusion in reports of clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 124:1996;741-743.
22. Begg C., Cho M., Eastwood S.et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 276:1996;637-639.
23. The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CDROM]. Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration. Update Software, 1996, issue 3.
24. Dickersin K., Scherer R., Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 309:1994;1286-1291.
25. Whitman N. The Delphi technique as an alternative for committee meetings. J Nurs Educ. 29:1990;377-379.
26. Dickersin K., Higgins K., Meinert C.L. Identification of meta-analyses: the need for standard terminology. Control Clin Trials. 11:1990;52-66.
27. Taddio A., Pain T., Fassos F.F., Boon H., Illersich A.L., Einarson T.R. Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association. Can Med Assoc J. 150:1994;1611-1615.
28. Tramér M., Reynolds D.J.M., Moore R.A., McQuay H.J. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ. 315:1997;635-640.
29. McAuley, L., Moher, D., Tugwell, P. The influence of grey literature on meta-analysis. MSc Thesis: University of Ottawa, 1999.
30. Moher, D., Pham, B., Klassen, T.P., et al. Does the language of publication of reports of randomized trials influence the estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? 6th Cochrane Colloquium; 1998.
31. Egger M., Zellweger-Zahner T., Schneider M., Junker C., Lengeler C., Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 350:1997;326-329.
32. Khan K.S., Daya S., Collins J.A., Walter S. Empirical evidence of bias in infertility research: overestimation of treatment effect in crossover trials using pregnancy as the outcome measure. Fertil Steril. 65:1996;939-945.
33. Schulz K.F., Chalmers I., Hayes R.J., Altman D.G. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 273:1995;408-412.
34. Moher D., Pham B., Jones A.et al. Does the quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 352:1998;609-613.
35. Jadad A.R., Moore R.A., Carroll D.et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 17:1996;1-12.
36. Berlin J.A. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? Lancet. 350:1997;185-186.
37. Barnes D.E., Bero L.A. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA. 279:1998;1566-1570.
38. Thompson S.G. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ. 309:1994;1351-1355.
39. Simes R.J. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 4:1986;1529-1541.
40. Sterling T.D., Rosenbaum W.L., Weinkam J.J. Publication decisions revisited: the effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. Am Statist. 49:1995;108-128.
41. Dickersin, K., Min, Y.I. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials 1993: April 28; doc no 50.
42. Easterbrook P.J., Berlin J.A., Gopalan R., Matthews D.R. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 337:1991;867-872.
43. Cook D.J., Guyatt G.H., Ryan G.et al. Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA. 269:1993;2749-2753.
44. Smith M.L. Publication bias and meta-analysis. Eval Educ. 4:1980;22-24.
45. Moher D., Fortin P., Jadad A.R.et al. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet. 347:1996;363-366.
46. Vickers A., Goyal N., Harland R., Rees R. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 19:1998;159-166.
47. Kennedy, E., Song, F., Hunter, R., Clark, A., Gilbody, S. Risperidone versus typical antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia (Cochrane Review). In: Cochrane Library, issue 3. Oxford: Update Software, 1999.
48. Davies A., Adena M.A., Keks N.A., Catts S.V., Lambert T., Schweitzer I. Risperidone versus haloperidol: I, meta-analysis of efficacy and safety. Clin Ther. 20:1998;58-71.
49. Leucht S., Pitschel-Walz G., Abraham D., Kissling W. Efficacy and extrapyramidal side-effects of the new antipsychotics olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and sertindole compared to conventional antipsychotics and placebo: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Schizophrenia Res. 35:1999;51-68.