Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement;Mejora de la calidad de los informes de los metaanalisis de ensayos clinicos controlados: El acuerdo QUOROM

Revista Espanola de Salud Publica

Volumn 74, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 107-118

  Moher, David ^a,g   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 Ctro el Contr y Prevencion E   (United States)

^g CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; META ANALYSIS; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL;

META-ANALYSIS; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS;

EID: 0034125974     PISSN: 11355727     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Mulrow CD. The Medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106: 485.88.
2. Cook DJ, Mulrow C, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 376-80.
3. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer W. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 167-71.
4. Deeks J, Glanville J, Shelton T. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness CRD guidelines for those carrying our or commissioning reviews. CRD report no. 4. York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Universidad de York, 1996.
5. Chalmers I, Haynes RB, Reporting, updating and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. En: Chalmers I, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews. Londres: BMJ Publishing Group 1995: 86-95.
6. Bero L, Rennie D. The Cochrane Collaboration preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA 1995; 274: 1935-38.
7. Huston P. The Cochrane Collaboration helping unravel tangled web woven by international research. Can Med Assoc J 1996; 154: 1389-92.
8. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berck VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 450-55.
9. Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: an update. Mt Sinai J Med 1966; 63: 216-24.
10. Mulrow CD, Oxman AD, eds. Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. En: The Cochrane Library [base de datos en disco y CD-ROM]. Oxford Cochrane Collaboration. Software de actualización: 1994, emisión 4.
11. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, and the Evidence-Baed Medicine Working Group. Users' guides to the medical literature: VI, how to use an overview. JAMA 1994; 272: 1367-71.
12. Klassen TP, Jadad AR, Moher D. Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: I, getting started. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998; 152: 700-04.
13. L'Abbé KA, Detsky AS, O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107: 224-33.
14. Olkin I. A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods. Am J Epidemiolol 1984; 140: 287-88.
15. Olkin I. Statistical and theoretical considerations in meta- analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 133-46.
16. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair J, Hayward R, Cook DJ, Cook RJ. Users' guides to the medical literature IX, a method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA 1995; 274: 1800-04.
17. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman G. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. Can Med Assoc J 1997;156: 1411-16.
18. LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F. Discrepancies between meta-analysis and subsequent large ramdomized controlled trials. N Eng J Med 1997;337: 536-42.
19. Shea B, Dubé C, Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports of meta-analysis: a systematic review of scales and checklists. En: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews, 2nd edn. Londres: BMJ Publishing Group (en prensa).
20. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group. A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1994; 272: 1926-31.
21. The Asilomar Working Group on recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature. Checklist of information for inclusion in reports of clinical trials. Am Intern Med 1996; 124: 741.43.
22. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276: 637-39.
23. The Cochrane Library [base de datos en disquete y CD-ROM]. Oxford: Cochrane Collaboration. Software de actualización, 1996; emisión 3.
24. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994; 309: 1286-91.
25. Whitman N. The Delphi technique as an alternative for committee meetings. J Nurs Educ 1990 29 377.79.
26. Dickersin K, Higgins K, Meinert CL. Identification of meta-analysis: the need foe standard terminology. Control Clin Trials 1990; 11: 52-66.
27. Taddio A, Pain T, Fassos FF, Boon H, Illersich AL, Einarson TR; 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 1994; 150 16611-15.
28. Tramer M, Reynolds DJM, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BJM 1997; 315: 635-40.
29. McAuley L, Moher D, Tugwell P. The influence of grey literature on meta-analysis. MSc Thesis: Universidad de Ottawa, 1999.
30. Moher D, Pharn B, Klassen TP, et al. Does the language of publication of reports of randomized controlled trials influence the estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analysis? 6th Cochrane Colloquium, 1998.
31. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomized controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997; 350: 326-29.
32. Khan KS, Daya S, Collins JA, Walter S. Empirical evidence of bias in infertility research: overesumation of treatment effect in crossover trials using pregnancy as the outcome measure. Fertil Steril 1996; 65: 939-45.
33. Schultz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG, Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995; 274: 408-12.
34. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does the quality of reports of randomized trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analysis? Lancet 1998; 352: 609-13.
35. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1-12.
36. Berlin JA on behalf of the University of Pennsylvania meta-analysis blinding study group. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analysis? Lancet 1997; 350: 185-86.
37. Barnes DE, Bero LA. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions? JAMA 1998; 279: 1566-70.
38. Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated? BMJ 1994; 309: 1351-55.
39. Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4: 1529.41.
40. Sterling TD, Rosenbaum WL, Weinkam JJ. Publication decisions revisited: the effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. Am Statist 1995; 49: 108-12.
41. Dickersin K, Min YI. NIH clinical trials and publications bias. Online J Curr Clin Trails 1993: 28 de abril; doc no 50.
42. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867-72.
43. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Ryan G, et al. Should unpublished data be included in meta-analysis? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA 1993; 269: 2749-53.
44. Smith ML. Publication bias and meta-analysis. Eval Educ 1980; 4: 22-24.
45. Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, et al. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet 1996; 347: 363-66.
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 1998, 19: 159-66.
47. Kennedy E, Song F, Hunter R, Clark A, Gilbody S. Risperidone versus typical antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia (Cochrane Review). En: Cochrane Library, issue 3. Oxford: Software de actualización, 1999.
48. Davies A, Adena MA, Kecks NA, Catts SV, Lambert T, Schweitzer I, Risperidone versus haloperidol: I, meta-analysis of efficacy and safety. Clin Ther 1998; 20: 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 randomized controlled trials. Schizophrenia Res 1999; 35: 51.69.