Letter

Word limits best explain failings of industry supported meta-analyses

BMJ 2006; 333 doi: 10.1136/bmj.39024.372662.1F (Published 9 November 2006)
Cite this as: BMJ 2006;333:1021.2

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. Jonathan J Deeks, professor of health statistics
  1. 1Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT j.deeks@bham.ac.uk

Although few doubt that industry funded systematic reviews sometimes use poor methods and misrepresent findings, Jørgensen et al overestimate this bias and misattribute differences in methods and reporting to it.1 Median quality scores of the included reviews were 7 for Cochrane reviews, and 2, 2, and 3 for industry funded, undeclared funding and non-profit or no funding journal reviews. These results are best explained by word restrictions, not financial support. For example, the BMJ paper and online versions of the included celecoxib review were restricted …

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment

Subscribe

Article access

Article access for 1 day

Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

* Prices do not include VAT

Rapid responses

THIS WEEK'S POLL

BMJ most popular