Masking reviewers at the study inclusion stage in a systematic review of health care interventions

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volumn , Issue 2, 2007, Pages

  Westby, Margaret J ^a,d   Clarke, Mike J ^b   Hopewell, Sally ^b   Ram, Felix S F ^c  

^a RCN Institute   (United Kingdom)

^b UK COCHRANE CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^c MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

^d RADCLIFFE INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL STUDY; DATA EXTRACTION; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERVENTION STUDY; MASKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

EID: 44949175932     PISSN: 1469493X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000019.pub2     Document Type: Review

References (9)

1. Berlin 1997a Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? Results of a randomized trial. Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials 1997:Document No. 205.
2. Berlin 1997b Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses?. Lancet 1997;350:185-6.
3. Chalmers 1987 Chalmers TC, Berrier J, Sacks HS, Levin H, Reitman D, Nagalingham R. Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline II: Replicate variability and comparison of studies that agree and disagree. Statistics in Medicine 1987;6:733-44.
4. Cho 1998 Cho MK, Justice AC, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Waeckerle JF, Callaham ML, Rennie D. Masking author identity in Peer Review. What factors influence masking success?. JAMA 1998;280:243-5.
5. Clarke 2003 Clarke M, Oxman AD, editors. Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.1.6 [updated January 2003]. The Cochrane Library. Oxford: Update Software. Updated quarterly.
6. Linde 2003 Linde K, Willich SN. How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2003;96:17-22.
7. Sacks 1987 Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. New England Journal of Medicine 1987;316:450-5.
8. van Rooyen 1998 van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. JAMA 1998;280:234-7.
9. West 1997 West R. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses?. Lancet 1997;350:892.