Cochrane reviews v industry supported meta-analyses: We should read all reviews with caution

BMJ

Volumn 333, Issue 7574, 2006, Pages 916-

  Coyne, James C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COCHRANE LIBRARY; DEPRESSION; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; LETTER; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; DRUG INDUSTRY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; NOTE;

DRUG;

DRUG INDUSTRY; META-ANALYSIS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; RESEARCH SUPPORT; REVIEW LITERATURE;

EID: 33750586211     PISSN: 09598138     EISSN: 14685833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.333.7574.916     Document Type: Letter

References (4)

1. Jørgensen AW, Hilden J, Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 2006; 333: 782–5. (14 October.)
2. Parker G, Roy K, Eyers K. Cognitive behavior therapy for depression? Choose horses for courses. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160: 825–34.
3. Barbato A, D'Avanzo B. Marital therapy for depression. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; (2): CD004188.pub2.
4. Bjordal JM, Lopes-Martins RAB, Klovning A. Is quality control of Cochrane reviews in controversial areas sufficient Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2006; 12: 181–3.