Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: Systematic review

British Medical Journal

Volumn 333, Issue 7572, 2006, Pages 782-785

  Jørgensen, Anders W ^a   Hilden, Jørgen ^b   Gøtzsche, Peter C ^a  

^a International Center for Research and Research Training in Endocrine Disruption of Male Reproduction and Child Health   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COCHRANE LIBRARY; DRUG INDUSTRY; EMBASE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONFLICT OF INTEREST; DRUG INDUSTRY; META-ANALYSIS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; RESEARCH SUPPORT; REVIEW LITERATURE;

EID: 33750036086     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326:1167-70.
2. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:454-65.
3. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 2003;290:921-8.
4. The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Collaboration-principles. www.cochrane.org/docs/tenprinciples.htm (accessed 18 Sept 2006).
5. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998;280:278-80.
6. Jadad AR, Moher M, Browman GP, Booker L, Sigouin C, Fuentes M, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ 2000;320:537-40.
7. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Guidelines for reading literature reviews. Can Med Assoc J 1988;138:697-703.
8. Jadad AR, McQuay HJ. Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology. J Clin Epidemiol 1996;49:235-43.
9. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:1271-8.
10. Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? Lancet 1997;350:185-6.
11. Moja LP, Telaro E, D'Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ 2005;330:1053.
12. Konstam MA, Weir MR, Reicin A, Shapiro D, Sperling RS, Barr E, et al. Cardiovascular thrombotic events in controlled, clinical trials of rofecoxib. Circulation 2001;104:2280-8.
13. Jüni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S, Sterchi R, Dieppe PA, Egger M. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis. Lancet 2004;364:2021-9.
14. Cochrane Collaboration. Commercial sponsorship and the Cochrane Collaboration. www.cochrane.org/docs/commercialsponsorship.htm (accessed 16 June 2005).
15. Gøtzsche PC. Steroids and peptic ulcer: an end to the controversy? J Intern Med 1994;236:599-601.
16. Katerndahl DA, Lawler WR. Variability in meta-analytic results concerning the value of cholesterol reduction in coronary heart disease: a meta-meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 1999;149:429-41.
17. Chalmers TC, Berrier J, Sacks HS, Levin H, Reitman D, Nagalingam R. Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. II: replicate variability and comparison of studies that agree and disagree. Stat Med 1987;6:733-44.
18. Linde K, Willich SN. How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine. J R Soc Med 2003;96:17-22.
19. Gotzsche PC, Pødenphant J, Olesen M, Halberg P. Meta-analysis of second-line antirheumatic drugs: sample size bias and uncertain benefit. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:587-94.
20. Cook DJ, Reeve BK, Guyatt GH, Heyland DK, Griffith LE, Buckingham L, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: resolving discordant meta-analyses. JAMA 1996;275:308-14.
21. Olsen O, Gøtzsche PC. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;(4):CD001877.
22. Hopayian K. The need for caution in interpreting high quality systematic reviews. BMJ 2001;323:681-4.