BMJ  2006;333:916 (28 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7574.916-a

Letter

Cochrane reviews v industry supported meta-analyses

Has Cochrane really achieved its goals?

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

EDITOR—I am amazed that the BMJ chose to publish this review, given its small sample size yet broad conclusions.¹ I believe that if the results had been in the other direction it would be less likely to have been published.

It is true that Cochrane reviews report specific items more thoroughly than journal based reviews. However, much of this is due to the insistence of addressing methodological issues which are specious at times and the fact that Cochrane reviews are not limited by page length. For example, the issue of reporting allocation concealment, although it makes sense, does not mean that if not reported it was not done,² nor does it even consistently demonstrate that it is an important methodological issue to report.³

It is disappointing that the Cochrane Library has become an ivory tower, given that many of the reviews are out of date and methodologically weak. . . . [Full text of this article]

Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY 10029, USA mtostad@mail.com

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

Related Article

Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review

Anders W Jørgensen, Jørgen Hilden, and Peter C Gøtzsche
BMJ 2006 333: 782. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]