The Cochrane Collaboration in the 21st Century: Ten Challenges and One Reason Why They Must Be Met

Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context: Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 459-473

  Oxman, Andrew D ^a  

^a NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (Norway)

Author keywords

Cochrane collaboration; Ethical challenges; Sexually transmitted diseases; Social challenges; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

EID: 84948771008     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470693926.ch26     Document Type: Chapter

References (33)

1. Beauchamp TL, Cildress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989:5.
2. Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, Tyroler HA. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA 1991;266:93-8.
3. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. A consumer's guide to subgroup analyses. Ann Intern Med 1992;116:78-84.
4. Clarke M, Oxman AD, eds. Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook (updated July 1999). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1. Oxford: Update Software, 2000.
5. Counsell CE, Clarke MJ, Slattery J, Sandercock PAG. The miracle of DICE therapy for acute stroke: fact or fictional product of subgroup analysis? BMJ 1994;309:1677-81.
6. Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS, Stott P, Kyle G. Scientific journals and their authors' financial interests: a pilot study. Psychother Psychosom 1998;67:194-201.
7. Chalmers I, Haynes RB. Reporting, updating and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. BMJ 1994;309:862-5.
8. Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 1998;316:61-6.
9. Ioannidis JP. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 1998;279:281-6.
10. Dickersin K. How important is publication bias? a synthesis of available data. AIDS Educat Prev 1997;9:15-21.
11. Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 1997;315:640-5.
12. Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 1990;263:1405-8.
13. Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1986;4:1529-41.
14. Sykes R. Being a modern pharmaceutical company involves making information available on clinical trial programmes. BMJ 1998;317:1172-80.
15. The metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT). Current Controlled Trials. http://www.controlled-trials.com/frame.cfm?nextframe=mrct. Accessed 21 November 2000.
16. Funded Research. Community of Science. http://fundedresearch.cos.com. Accessed 21 November 2000.
17. The National Research Register. Update Software. http://www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm. Accessed 21 November 2000.
18. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1997;280:278-80.
19. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-34.
20. Pearson K. Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. BMJ 1904;3:1243-6.
21. Cochran WG. Problems arising in the analysis of a series of similar experiments. J Roy Stat Soc 1937;4(suppl):102-18.
22. Yates F, Cochran WG. The analysis of groups of experiments. J Agric Sci 1938;28:556-80.
23. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954;3:101-29.
24. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educat Res 1976;5:3-8.
25. Jackson GB. Methods for integrative reviews. Rev Educat Res 1980;50:438-60.
26. Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984.
27. Clarke M, Olsen KL, Oxman AD, eds. Cochrane Review Methodology Database. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3. Oxford: Update Software, 1999.
28. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1998;317:1185-90.
29. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Can Med Assoc J 1979;121:1193-254.
30. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services, 2nd edn. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1996:xxxix-lv.
31. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, Hayward RC, Cook DJ, Cook RJ, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA 1995;274:1800-4.
32. Eccles M, Clapp Z, Grimshaw J, et al. North of England evidence based guidelines development project: methods of guideline development. BMJ. 1996;312: 760-2.
33. Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendations. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://cebm.jr2.ox.ac.uk/docs/levels.html. Accessed 21 November 2000.