Document Detail


Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  17028106     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the methodological quality and conclusions in Cochrane reviews with those in industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs.
DESIGN: Systematic review comparing pairs of meta-analyses that studied the same two drugs in the same disease and were published within two years of each other.
DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2003, issue 1), PubMed, and Embase.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two observers independently extracted data and used a validated scale to judge the methodological quality of the reviews.
RESULTS: 175 of 1596 Cochrane reviews had a meta-analysis that compared two drugs. Twenty four meta-analyses that matched the Cochrane reviews were found: eight were industry supported, nine had undeclared support, and seven had no support or were supported by non-industry sources. On a 0-7 scale, the median quality score was 7 for Cochrane reviews and 3 for other reviews (P < 0.01). Compared with industry supported reviews and reviews with undeclared support, Cochrane reviews had more often considered the potential for bias in the review--for example, by describing the method of concealment of allocation and describing excluded patients or studies. The seven industry supported reviews that had conclusions recommended the experimental drug without reservations, compared with none of the Cochrane reviews (P = 0.02), although the estimated treatment effect was similar on average (z = 0.46, P = 0.64). Reviews with undeclared support and reviews with not for profit support or no support had conclusions that were similar in cautiousness to the Cochrane reviews.
CONCLUSIONS: Industry supported reviews of drugs should be read with caution as they were less transparent, had few reservations about methodological limitations of the included trials, and had more favourable conclusions than the corresponding Cochrane reviews.
Authors:
Anders W Jørgensen; Jørgen Hilden; Peter C Gøtzsche
Related Documents :
11212056 - Amniotic fluid embolus: a review of the literature.
20528506 - Reporting bias and other biases affecting systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a metho...
12957976 - Incomplete data reporting in studies of emergency department patients with potential ac...
16905066 - Search and selection methodology of systematic reviews in orthodontics (2000-2004).
9456526 - Decay rates in a cold climate region: a review of cases involving advanced decompositio...
15115226 - Experience with telepathology at a tertiary cancer centre and a rural cancer hospital.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article; Review     Date:  2006-10-06
Journal Detail:
Title:  BMJ (Clinical research ed.)     Volume:  333     ISSN:  1756-1833     ISO Abbreviation:  BMJ     Publication Date:  2006 Oct 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2006-10-13     Completed Date:  2006-10-19     Revised Date:  2013-06-07    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8900488     Medline TA:  BMJ     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  782     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
Affiliation:
Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Bias (Epidemiology)
Conflict of Interest
Drug Industry*
Meta-Analysis as Topic*
Pharmaceutical Preparations*
Research Support as Topic
Review Literature as Topic*
Chemical
Reg. No./Substance:
0/Pharmaceutical Preparations
Comments/Corrections
Comment In:
BMJ. 2006 Nov 11;333(7576):1021   [PMID:  17095791 ]
BMJ. 2006 Oct 28;333(7574):916-7   [PMID:  17068039 ]
BMJ. 2006 Oct 28;333(7574):916   [PMID:  17068040 ]
BMJ. 2006 Oct 28;333(7574):916   [PMID:  17068041 ]
Republished in:
Ugeskr Laeger. 2006 Nov 27;168(48):4218-20   [PMID:  17147949 ]

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Physical activity to prevent obesity in young children: cluster randomised controlled trial.
Next Document:  Gas diffusion and alveolar-capillary unit in chronic heart failure.