BMJ  2005;330:145 (15 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7483.145-b

Letter

Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in research

Meta-analyses have led to misleading claims in the past

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Montori et al cite the Cochrane albumin review in the table comparing two systematic reviews of albumin for fluid resuscitation.^{1 2} This review is an egregious example of a review that made a misleading claim—in this case a 6% additional mortality when albumin was compared with saline in a meta-analysis.

The users' guide of Montori et al is designed for assessing a single randomised controlled trial; when many randomised controlled trials are amalgamated into a review, the compilers demand a degree of trust from those who use their review for guidance. In dealing with a complex diverse subject, such as critical illness, no ordinary reader, editor, or peer reviewer, will examine critically all the randomised controlled trials from which the review's authors derived their conclusions.

In the Cochrane albumin review, seven randomised controlled trials were adduced to support the mistaken contention that albumin, used in the treatment of hypovolaemia, . . . [Full text of this article]

Ashley, Stockbridge, Hampshire SO20 6RH Horsey@lineone.net

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports

Victor M Montori, Roman Jaeschke, Holger J Schünemann, Mohit Bhandari, Jan L Brozek, P J Devereaux, and Gordon H Guyatt
BMJ 2004 329: 1093-1096. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Human albumin administration in critically ill patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials • Why albumin may not work

Cochrane Injuries Group Albumin Reviewers and Cochrane Injuries Group Albumin Reviewers
BMJ 1998 317: 235-240. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Online poll

Find out more >>