Intended for healthcare professionals


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

BMJ 2006; 333 doi: (Published 12 October 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;333:782
  1. Anders W Jørgensen, physician1,
  2. Jørgen Hilden, associate professor2,
  3. Peter C Gøtzsche (pcg{at}, director1
  1. 1 Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, DK-2100 Copenhagen ø, Denmark,
  2. 2Department of Biostatistics, Panum Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
  1. Correspondence to: P C Gøtzsche
  • Accepted 23 August 2006


Objective To compare the methodological quality and conclusions in Cochrane reviews with those in industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs.

Design Systematic review comparing pairs of meta-analyses that studied the same two drugs in the same disease and were published within two years of each other.

Data sources Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2003, issue 1), PubMed, and Embase.

Data extraction Two observers independently extracted data and used a validated scale to judge the methodological quality of the reviews.

Results 175 of 1596 Cochrane reviews had a meta-analysis that compared two drugs. Twenty four meta-analyses that matched the Cochrane reviews were found: eight were industry supported, nine had undeclared support, and seven had no support or were supported by non-industry sources. On a 0-7 scale, the median quality score was 7 for Cochrane reviews and 3 for other reviews (P < 0.01). Compared with industry supported reviews and reviews with undeclared support, Cochrane reviews had more often considered the potential for bias in the review—for example, by describing the method of concealment of allocation and describing excluded patients or studies. The seven industry supported reviews that had conclusions recommended the experimental drug without reservations, compared with none of the Cochrane reviews (P = 0.02), although the estimated treatment effect was similar on average (z = 0.46, P = 0.64). Reviews with undeclared support and reviews with not for profit support or no support had conclusions that were similar in cautiousness to the Cochrane reviews.

Conclusions Industry supported reviews of drugs should be read with caution as they were less transparent, had few reservations about methodological limitations of the included trials, and had more favourable conclusions than the corresponding Cochrane reviews.


  • Embedded ImageAn appendix, three extra tables, and extra references w1-w48 are on

    We thank Stefan Leucht, Deborah J Cook, Deborah Goebert, Michael Ludwig, Max H Pittler, Chiel Springer, Steven L West, Frederick A Spencer, and Patrick Chien for providing information on support and funding of their studies and the Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre, Barcelona for providing study facilities.

  • Contributors AWJ wrote the draft protocol and manuscript, and PCG contributed. AWJ and PCG extracted data. JH did the statistical analyses that compared estimated treatment effects. All authors commented on the final manuscript. PCG is the guarantor.

  • Funding None.

  • Competing interests AWJ and PCG are affiliated with the Nordic Cochrane Centre. The views expressed in this article represent those of the authors and are not necessarily the views or the official policy of the Cochrane Collaboration.

View Full Text