Systematic differences between cochrane and non-cochrane meta-analyses on the same topic: A matched pair analysis

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 12, 2015, Pages

  Useem, Johanna ^a   Brennan, Alana ^a,b,c   LaValley, Michael ^a   Vickery, Michelle ^a   Ameli, Omid ^a   Reinen, Nichole ^a   Gill, Christopher J ^a,b  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF THE WITWATERSRAND   (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EFFECT SIZE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; PUBLICATION; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; PUBLISHING;

HUMANS; MATCHED-PAIR ANALYSIS; PUBLISHING;

EID: 84957109192     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144980     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. McKenzie JE, Salanti G, Lewis SC, Altman DG (2013) Meta-analysis and The Cochrane Collaboration: 20 years of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Systematic reviews 2: 80. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-80 PMID: 24280020
2. Starr M, Chalmers I, Clarke M, Oxman AD (2009) The origins, evolution, and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. International journal of technology assessment in health care 25 Suppl 1: 182-195. doi: 10.1017/S026646230909062X PMID: 19534840
3. Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC (2006) Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333: 782. PMID: 17028106
4. Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Cracknell J (2008) User experiences of evidence-based online resources for health professionals: user testing of The Cochrane Library. Bmc Medical Informatics and Decision Making 8: 34. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-8-34 PMID: 18662382
5. Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JP (2013) Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ 347: f4501. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4501 PMID: 23873947
6. Helfer B, Prosser A, Samara MT, Geddes JR, Cipriani A, Davis JM, et al. (2015) Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: a systematic examination. BMC medicine 13: 82. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0317-4 PMID: 25889502
7. Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, Maher CG, Sherrington C (2009) Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. Journal of clinical epidemiology 62: 1021-1030. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.018 PMID: 19282144
8. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, Brehaut J, Moher D (2009) Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study. Journal of clinical epidemiology 62: 380-386 e381. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.008 PMID: 19128940
9. Cochrane Community (beta): History; Chronology of significant events and milestones in Cochrane's history.
10. Ha TC, Tan SB, Soo KC (2006) The journal impact factor: too much of an impact? Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 35: 911-916. PMID: 17219007
11. Callaham M, Wears RL, Weber E (2002) Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 287: 2847-2850. PMID: 12038930
12. Goodman SN (1999) Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: The P value fallacy. Annals of internal medicine 130: 995-1004. PMID: 10383371
13. Ioannidis JP (1998) Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 279: 281-286. PMID: 9450711
14. Chan AW, Altman DG (2005) Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 330: 753. PMID: 15681569