Conclusiveness of the Cochrane Neonatal Reviews: A systematic analysis

Acta Paediatrica, International Journal of Paediatrics

Volumn 95, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 1209-1212

  Mandel, Dror ^a,b   Littner, Yoav ^a   Mimouni, Francis B ^a   Lubetzky, Ronit ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

^b LIS MATERNITY HOSPITAL   (Israel)

Author keywords

Meta analysis; Neonatology; Randomised clinical trial

Indexed keywords

COCHRANE LIBRARY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REVIEW;

HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; META-ANALYSIS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; NEONATOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 33748847330     PISSN: 08035253     EISSN: 16512227     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08035250600580537     Document Type: Review

References (9)

1. URL: http://cochrane.mcmaster.ca/neonatal/.Accessed June 2004.
2. Sinclair JC, Haughton DE, Bracken MB, Horbar JD, Soll RF. Cochrane neonatal systematic reviews: a survey of the evidence for neonatal therapies. Clin Perinatol 2003;30:285-304.
3. URL: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/cochraneneonatal/cochrane.cfm. Accessed June 2004.
4. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J 1997;315:629-34.
5. Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:1119-29.
6. 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 1997;350:326-9.
7. Littner Y, Mimouni FB, Dollberg S, Mandel D. Negative results and impact factor: a lesson from neonatology. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:1036-7.
8. URL: http:/www.nichd.nih.gov/cochraneneonatal/Steer/Steer. htm. Accessed January 2005.
9. Mallett S, Clarke M. The typical Cochrane review. How many trials? How many participants? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002;18:820-3.