Systematic reviews are not biased by results from trials stopped early for benefit

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 61, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 95-96

  Goodman, Steven N ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; HUMAN; LETTER; META ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 36849052512     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.012     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Bassler D., Ferreira-Gonzales I., Briel M., Cook D.J., Deveraux P.J., Heels-Ansdell D., et al. Systematic reviewers neglect bias that results from trials stopped early for benefit. J Clin Epidemiol 60 (2007) 869-873
2. Goodman S.N. Stopping at nothing? Some dilemmas of data monitoring in clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 146 (2007) 882-887
3. Hughes M.D., Freedman L.S., and Pocock S.J. The impact of stopping rules on heterogeneity of results in overviews of clinical trials. Biometrics 48 (1992) 41-53
4. Brockwell S.E., and Gordon I.R. A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. Stat Med 20 (2001) 825-840
5. Moher D., Schulz K.F., and Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 285 (2001) 1987-1991