Bibliographic study showed improving methodology of meta-analyses published in leading journals 1993-2002

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 60, Issue 8, 2007, Pages 773-780

  Gerber, Stefan ^a   Tallon, Deborah ^b   Trelle, Sven ^a   Schneider, Martin ^a   Jüni, Peter ^a,b   Egger, Matthias ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical trials; Meta analysis; Publication bias; Publishing; Random allocation; Reporting guidelines

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW;

DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 34250815003     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.10.022     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Mulrow C.D. Rationale for systematic reviews. Br Med J 309 (1994) 597-599
2. Egger M., and Davey Smith G. Meta-analysis: potentials and promise. Br Med J 315 (1997) 1371-1374
3. Villar J., Carroli G., and Belizan J.M. Predictive ability of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 345 (1995) 772-776
4. Le Lorier J., Grégoire G., Benhaddad A., Lapierre J., and Derderian F. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 337 (1997) 536-542
5. Egger M., Davey Smith G., Schneider M., and Minder C.E. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br Med J 315 (1997) 629-634
6. Nurmohamed M.T., Rosendaal F.R., Bueller H.R., Dekker E., Hommes D.W., Vandenbroucke J.P., et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis. Lancet 340 (1992) 152-156
7. Leizorovicz A., Haugh M.C., Chapuis F.R., Samama M.M., and Boissel J.P. Low molecular weight heparin in prevention of perioperative thrombosis. Br Med J 305 (1992) 913-920
8. Dickersin K. How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev 9 (1997) 15-21
9. Egger M., and Davey Smith G. Meta-analysis: bias in location and selection of studies. Br Med J 316 (1998) 61-66
10. Stern J.M., and Simes R.J. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. Br Med J 315 (1997) 640-645
11. Egger M., Zellweger-Zähner T., Schneider M., Junker C., Lengeler C., and Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 350 (1997) 326-329
12. Ravnskov U. Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: frequency of citation and outcome. Br Med J 305 (1992) 15-19
13. Tramèr M.R., Reynolds D.J.M., Moore R.A., and McQuay H.J. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. Br Med J 315 (1997) 635-640
14. Chan A.W., Hrobjartsson A., Haahr M.T., Gotzsche P.C., and Altman D.G. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291 (2004) 2457-2465
15. Schulz K.F., Chalmers I., Hayes R.J., and Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273 (1995) 408-412
16. Jüni P., Altman D.G., and Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. Br Med J 323 (2001) 42-46
17. Moher D., Pham B., Jones A., Cook D.J., Jadad A.R., Moher M., et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet 352 (1998) 609-613
18. Buscemi N., Hartling L., Vandermeer B., Tjosvold L., and Klassen T.P. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (2006) 697-703
19. Choi P.T., Halpern S.H., Malik N., Jadad A.R., Tramer M.R., and Walder B. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg 92 (2001) 700-709
20. Kelly K.D., Travers A., Dorgan M., Slater L., and Rowe B.H. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med 38 (2001) 518-526
21. Dixon E., Hameed M., Sutherland F., Cook D.J., and Doig C. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal. Ann Surg 241 (2005) 450-459
22. Moher D., Cook D.J., Eastwood S., Olkin I., Rennie D., and Stroup D.F. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 354 (1999) 1896-1900
23. Sterne J.A.C., Gavaghan D.J., and Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 53 (2000) 1119-1129
24. Oxman A.D. Checklists for review articles. Br Med J 309 (1994) 648-651
25. Oxman A.D., Guyatt G.H., Singer J., Goldsmith C.H., Hutchison B.G., Milner R.A., et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 44 (1991) 91-98
26. Cook D.J., Sackett D.L., and Spitzer W.O. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48 (1995) 167-171
27. Oxman A.D., Cook D.J., and Guyatt G.H. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. JAMA 272 (1994) 1367-1371
28. In: Clarke M., and Oxman A.D. (Eds). Cochrane reviewers' handbook 4.2. Cochrane Library, Issue 3 (2003), Update Software, Oxford
29. L'Abbé K.A., Detsky A.S., and O'Rourke K. Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Intern Med 107 (1987) 224-233
30. Deeks J.J., Altman D.G., and Bradburn M.J. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In: Egger M., Smith D.G., and Altman D.G. (Eds). Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context (2001), BMJ Books, London 285-312
31. Poole C., and Greenland S. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. Am J Epidemiol 150 (1999) 469-475
32. Pettitt A.N. A simple cumulative sum type statistic for the change-point problem with zero-one observations. Biometrika 67 (1980) 79-84
33. Taylor W. Change-point analyzer 2.0 (2000), Taylor Enterprises, Libertyville, IL. http://www.variation.com/cpa
34. Dickersin K., Manheimer E., Wieland S., Robinson K.A., Lefebvre C., and McDonald S. Development of the Cochrane Collaboration's CENTRAL Register of controlled clinical trials. Eval Health Prof 25 (2002) 38-64
35. Egger M., Ebrahim S., and Smith G.D. Where now for meta-analysis?. Int J Epidemiol 31 (2002) 1-5
36. Mulrow C.D. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 106 (1987) 485-488
37. Pogue J., and Yusuf S. Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 351 (1998) 47-52
38. Rennie D. Trial registration: a great idea switches from ignored to irresistible. JAMA 292 (2004) 1359-1362
39. Horton R., and Smith R. Time to register randomised trials. The case is now unanswerable. Br Med J 319 (1999) 865-866
40. Krleza-Jeric K. Clinical trial registration: the differing views of industry, the WHO, and the Ottawa Group. PLoS Med 2 (2005) e378
41. De Angelis C.D., Drazen J.M., Frizelle F.A., Haug C., Hoey J., Horton R., et al. Is this clinical trial fully registered?-A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 352 (2005) 2436-2438
42. Jadad A.R., and McQuay H.J. Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology. J Clin Epidemiol 49 (1996) 235-243
43. Shea B., Moher D., Graham I., Pham B., and Tugwell P. A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof 25 (2002) 116-129
44. Delaney A., Bagshaw S.M., Ferland A., Manns B., Laupland K.B., and Doig C.J. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care 9 (2005) R575-R582
45. Smith B.J., Darzins P.J., Quinn M., and Heller R.F. Modern methods of searching the medical literature. Med J Aust 157 (1992) 603-611
46. Woods D., and Trewheellar K. Medline and Embase complement each other in literature searches. Br Med J 316 (1998) 1166
47. McManus R.J., Wilson S., Delaney B.C., Fitzmaurice D.A., Hyde C.J., Tobias R.S., et al. Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews. Br Med J 317 (1998) 1562-1563
48. Begg C., Cho M., Eastwood S., Horton R., Moher D., Olkin I., et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 276 (1996) 637-639
49. Altman D.G., Schulz K.F., Moher D., Egger M., Davidoff F., Elbourne D., et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134 (2001) 663-694
50. Moher D., Schulz K.F., Altman D.G., and for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. JAMA 285 (2001) 1987-1991