Letters

Word limits best explain failings of industry supported meta-analyses

BMJ 2006; 333 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39024.372662.1F (Published 09 November 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;333:1021
  1. Jonathan J Deeks, professor of health statistics
  1. 1Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT j.deeks@bham.ac.uk

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 …

View Full Text

Sign in

Log in through your institution

Free trial

Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
Sign up for a free trial

Subscribe