Cochrane reviews v industry supported meta-analyses: Has Cochrane really achieved its goals?

doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7574.916-a

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 thisreview, given its small sample size yet broad conclusions.¹I believe that if the results had been in the other directionit would be less likely to have been published.

It is true that Cochrane reviews report specific items morethoroughly than journal based reviews. However, much of thisis due to the insistence of addressing methodological issueswhich are specious at times and the fact that Cochrane reviewsare not limited by page length. For example, the issue of reportingallocation concealment, although it makes sense, does not meanthat if not reported it was not done,² nor does it even consistentlydemonstrate that it is an important methodological issue toreport.³

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

Marko Tostad, epidemiologist

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

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon Add to Technorati

Technorati What's this?

Relevant 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]