Why most published meta-analysis findings are false

Techniques in Coloproctology

Volumn 23, Issue 9, 2019, Pages 925-928

  Doleman, B ^a   Williams, J P ^a   Lund, J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CORTICOSTEROID;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LIMIT OF QUANTITATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD; POPULATION RESEARCH; PREDICTIVE VALUE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; STATISTICAL MODEL; SURGICAL MORTALITY; COLORECTAL SURGERY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC);

COLORECTAL SURGERY; DATA ACCURACY; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PUBLICATION BIAS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85068183859     PISSN: 11236337     EISSN: 1128045X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10151-019-02020-y     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2:e124
2. LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F (1997) Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 337:536–542
3. Sivakumar H, Peyton PJ (2016) Poor agreement in significant findings between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized trials in perioperative medicine. Br J Anaesth 117:431–441
4. Doleman B, Sutton AJ, Sherwin M, Lund JN, Williams JP (2018) Baseline morphine consumption may explain between-study heterogeneity in meta-analyses of adjuvant analgesics and improve precision and accuracy of effect estimates. Anesth Analg 126:648–660
5. Hedin RJ, Umberham BA, Detweiler BN, Kollmorgen L, Vassar M (2016) Publication bias and nonreporting found in majority of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in anesthesiology journals. Anesth Analg 123:1018–1025
6. Imberger G, Gluud C, Boylan J, Wetterslev J (2015) Systematic reviews of anesthesiologic interventions reported as statistically significant: problems with power, precision, and type 1 error protection. Anesth Analg 121:1611–1622
7. Detweiler BN, Kollmorgen LE, Umberham BA, Hedin RJ, Vassar BM (2016) Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals: a meta-epidemiological study. Anaesthesia 71:955–968
8. Conway A, Conway Z, Soalheira K, Sutherland J (2017) High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in anaesthesia, critical care and emergency medicine. Eur J Anaesth 34:808