Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2006;333:916 (28 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7574.916
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORThat industry sponsored meta-analyses differ in conclusions from Cochrane reviews does not mean that industry sponsorship is the only source of bias or that Cochrane reviews should be uncritically accepted.1
Allegiances of authors of meta-analyses are not only associated with selective attention to relevant studies and more positive conclusions in the case of industry ties.2 We should be sceptical about a comparative review from the director of a Cochrane Centre that puts the centre in such a favourable light.
| |||||||||||
Cochrane reviews are sometimes conducted on literature that is not ready for meta-analysis, with adverse implications for clinical practice and public policy. A recent Cochrane meta-analysis concluded that couples therapy was not better than individual therapy for depression.3 The offering of couples therapy should be a matter of "patient preference and availability of specific resources." Yet, the studies reviewed were all seriously flawed. None had close to
James C Coyne, professor of psychology in psychiatry
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA jcoyne@mail.med.upenn.edu