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.
EDITOR One area where there should be neither debate nor difficulty is that of
systematic reviews. Readers of the review ought to have access to the
numerical results of the primary studies being reviewed to allow the
analyses to be checked and for other analyses to be investigated. Also,
this enables readers to examine the actual results rather than the
authors' aggregation or summary; for example, they can assess the
variation in event rates across the studies, without which an odds
ratio is impossible to interpret.
We have each separately had the experience of authors of systematic
reviews published in the BMJ refusing to release these data,
in one case to enable the data to be used in an educational article.
Such obstruction is worrying and suggests that some suspicion is
appropriate where none had existed at the time of the request. Given
that in almost all cases the results will already be in the public
domain, we can see no valid excuse for not including the data in the
report or making them available electronically. The missed opportunity
is even clearer in those cases where an extended version of a paper
appears on the web page but the trial results are still not given,
although in this case the authors have made the data available to
us.4
The BMJ and other journals should insist that authors of
systematic reviews adhere to one of the key recommendations the QUOROM statement
Hutchon discussed the desirability of publishing the raw data
used in medical research articles, and Eysenbach and Sa have outlined
some of the difficulties.
1 2
The least that should happen
at the moment is that authors should be able to make their data
available on a journal's website. One journal that already does this
is Clinical Chemistry, which will include data supplements
in the material sent to reviewers.3 Journals should
encourage authors to post their data on the website.
namely, to present simple summary results for each treatment group in each trial, for each primary outcome.5
ICRF/NHS Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Institute of
Health Sciences, Oxford OX3 7LF altman{at}icrf.icnet.uk
Christopher Cates
Bushey, Hertfordshire WD2 2NN
| 1. |
Hutchon DJR.
Infopoints: Publishing raw data and real time statistical analysis on e-journals.
BMJ
2001;
322:
530 |
| 2. |
Eysenbach G, Sa E-R.
Code of conduct is needed for publishing raw data.
BMJ
2001;
323:
166 |
| 3. | Clinical Chemistry. Information for authors. www.aacc.org/ccj/infoauth.stm (accessed 20 July 2001). |
| 4. |
Tramèr MR, Carroll D, Campbell FA, Reynolds DJM, Moore RA, McQuay HJ.
Cannabinoids for control of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting: quantitative systematic review.
BMJ
2001;
323:
16 |
| 5. | Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D, for the QUOROM Group. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999; 354: 1896-1900[CrossRef][Medline]. |
Read all Rapid Responses
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.