BMJ  2006;333:1021 (11 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.39024.372662.1F

Letters

Word limits best explain failings of industry supported meta-analyses

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

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 to 2211 and 3425 words,² whereas the unrestricted Cochrane review has 6002 words.³

The reliability of unblinded quality assessments raises concern, at least for the celecoxib reviews. Contrary to the findings of Jørgensen et al, the reviews gave equivalent detail concerning allocation concealment, and the industry funded review contained four paragraphs with reservations about results. Interestingly, the BMJ deleted two of these paragraphs to shorten . . . [Full text of this article]

¹ Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT j.deeks@bham.ac.uk

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

Relevant Articles

Are US flu death figures more PR than science?

Peter Doshi
BMJ 2005 331: 1412. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Efficacy, tolerability, and upper gastrointestinal safety of celecoxib for treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Jonathan J Deeks, Lesley A Smith, and Matthew D Bradley
BMJ 2002 325: 619. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]