The problem of duplicate systematic reviews

BMJ (Online)

Volumn 347, Issue 7921, 2013, Pages

  Moher, David ^a  

^a OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL PROTOCOL; EDITORIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84883038475     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f5040     Document Type: Editorial

References (15)

1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. RCT evaluation criteria and headings. 2013. www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39187.html.
2. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010;7:e1000326.
3. Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JPA. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ 2013;347:f4501.
4. Fleischmann M, Pons S. Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium. J Electroanalyt Chem 1989;261:301-8.
5. Huizenga Jr. Cold fusion: the scientific fiasco of the century. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 1993.
6. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:1341-5.
7. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2012;1:2
8. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility. Syst Rev 2013;2:4.
9. Davies S. The importance of PROSPERO to the National Institute for Health Research. Syst Rev 2012;1:5
10. Robinson KA, Goodman SN. Systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:50-5.
11. Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:380-7. (Pubitemid 27362747)
12. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco A, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007;4:e78.
13. Shea B, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Method 2007;7:10.
14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; and the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.
15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche P, Ioannidis JPA, et al; and the PRISMA Group. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700.