Can we rely on the best trial? a comparison of individual trials and systematic reviews

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 10, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Glasziou, Paul P ^a   Shepperd, Sasha ^b   Brassey, Jon ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c National Public Health Service   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPARATIVE STUDY; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PROBABILITY;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PROBABILITY; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 77950992942     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-10-23     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. The medical review article: state of the science. CD Mulrow, Ann Intern Med 1987 106 485 8 3813259
2. How many Cochrane reviews are needed to cover existing evidence on the effects of health care interventions? S Mallett M Clarke, ACP J Club 2003 139:A11. (Pubitemid 36987276)
3. Finding and applying evidence during clinical rounds: the "evidence cart". DL Sackett SE Straus, JAMA 1998 280 1336-8
4. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: XXV. Evidence-based medicine: principles for applying the Users' Guides to patient care: Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. GH Guyatt RB Haynes RZ Jaeschke DJ Cook L Green CD Naylor MC Wilson WS Richardson, JAMA 2000 284 1290-6
5. Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report. M Clarke S Hopewell I Chalmers, J R Soc Med 2007 100 187-90 (Pubitemid 46698171)
6. Estimating time to conduct a meta-analysis from number of citations retrieved. IE Allen I Olkin, Journal of the American Medical Association 1999 282 634-635 (Pubitemid 29384150)
7. Issues in comparisons between meta-analyses and large trials. JP Ioannidis JC Cappelleri J Lau, JAMA 1998 279 1089-93 (Pubitemid 28177817)
8. The typical Cochrane review. How many trials? How many participants? S Mallett M Clarke, Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002 18 820-3 (Pubitemid 36125887)
9. How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine. K Linde SN Willich, J R Soc Med 2003 96 17-22 (Pubitemid 36106273)
10. Discrepancies among megatrials. TA Furukawa DL Streiner S Hori, J Clin Epidemiol 2000 53 1193-9 (Pubitemid 32007834)
11. Was the study big enough? Two "café" rules. P Glasziou H Doll, ACP J Club 2007 147 3 A8-9
12. Interactive Health Communication Applications for people with chronic disease. E Murray J Burns TS See R Lai I Nazareth, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004 18 4 D004274 Retraction in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(4):CD004274
13. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. LL Kjaergard J Villumsen C Gluud, Ann Intern Med 2001 135 982-9 (Pubitemid 33131619)
14. Are systematic reviews more cost-effective than randomised trials? P Glasziou B Djulbegovic A Burls, Lancet 2006 367 2057-8 (Pubitemid 43913976)