Cochraneoversigter sammenlignet med firmastøttede og andre metaanalyser af de samme laegemidler

Anders W Jørgensen; Jørgen Hilden; Peter C Gøtzsche

Cochraneoversigter sammenlignet med firmastøttede og andre metaanalyser af de samme laegemidler

Anders W Jørgensen, Jørgen Hilden, Peter C Gøtzsche

Biostatistisk afdeling

3 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

24 Cochrane reviews were compared with other, closely matched, meta-analyses of the same drugs. The quality score was highest for Cochrane reviews (7 vs. 2, p < 0.01). Of 8 industry-supported reviews, 7 with conclusions all 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 (p = 0.64). Industry-supported reviews were less transparent, had few reservations about methodological limitations of the included trials, and should be read with caution.
Udgivelsesdato: 2006-Nov-27

Bidragets oversatte titel	Cochrane reviews compared with industry-supported and other meta-analyses of the same drugs--secondary publication
Originalsprog	Dansk
Tidsskrift	Ugeskrift for læger
Vol/bind	168
Udgave nummer	48
Sider (fra-til)	4218-20
Antal sider	2
ISSN	0041-5782
Status	Udgivet - 2006

Citationsformater

@article{bccb89d09d4a11debc73000ea68e967b,

title = "Cochraneoversigter sammenlignet med firmast{\o}ttede og andre metaanalyser af de samme laegemidler",

abstract = "24 Cochrane reviews were compared with other, closely matched, meta-analyses of the same drugs. The quality score was highest for Cochrane reviews (7 vs. 2, p < 0.01). Of 8 industry-supported reviews, 7 with conclusions all 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 (p = 0.64). Industry-supported reviews were less transparent, had few reservations about methodological limitations of the included trials, and should be read with caution. Udgivelsesdato: 2006-Nov-27",

author = "J{\o}rgensen, {Anders W} and J{\o}rgen Hilden and G{\o}tzsche, {Peter C}",

year = "2006",

language = "Dansk",

volume = "168",

pages = "4218--20",

journal = "Ugeskrift for Laeger",

issn = "0041-5782",

publisher = "Almindelige Danske Laegeforening",

number = "48",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cochraneoversigter sammenlignet med firmastøttede og andre metaanalyser af de samme laegemidler

AU - Jørgensen, Anders W

AU - Hilden, Jørgen

AU - Gøtzsche, Peter C

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - 24 Cochrane reviews were compared with other, closely matched, meta-analyses of the same drugs. The quality score was highest for Cochrane reviews (7 vs. 2, p < 0.01). Of 8 industry-supported reviews, 7 with conclusions all 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 (p = 0.64). Industry-supported reviews were less transparent, had few reservations about methodological limitations of the included trials, and should be read with caution. Udgivelsesdato: 2006-Nov-27

AB - 24 Cochrane reviews were compared with other, closely matched, meta-analyses of the same drugs. The quality score was highest for Cochrane reviews (7 vs. 2, p < 0.01). Of 8 industry-supported reviews, 7 with conclusions all 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 (p = 0.64). Industry-supported reviews were less transparent, had few reservations about methodological limitations of the included trials, and should be read with caution. Udgivelsesdato: 2006-Nov-27

M3 - Tidsskriftartikel

C2 - 17147949

SN - 0041-5782

VL - 168

SP - 4218

EP - 4220

JO - Ugeskrift for Laeger

JF - Ugeskrift for Laeger

IS - 48

ER -