Research
Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review
BMJ 2006; doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B (Published 06 October 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;:bmj;bmj.38973.444699.0Bv1Related articles
- Paper Published: 13 September 1997; BMJ 315 doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.640
- Research Published: 19 March 2010; BMJ 340 doi:10.1136/bmj.c1344
- Research Published: 06 December 2007; BMJ 335 doi:10.1136/bmj.39376.447211.BE
- RESEARCH Published: 16 November 2007; BMJ doi:10.1136/bmj.39376.447211.BE
- Education And Debate Published: 07 July 2001; BMJ 323 doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42
- Education And Debate Published: 17 January 1998; BMJ 316 doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7126.221
- Paper Published: 29 May 2003; BMJ 326 doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167
- Paper Published: 05 May 2005; BMJ 330 doi:10.1136/bmj.38414.515938.8F
- PAPERS Published: 07 April 2005; BMJ doi:10.1136/bmj.38414.515938.8F
- This Week In The BMJ Published: 12 October 2006; BMJ 333 doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7572.0-c
- Paper Published: 13 October 2001; BMJ 323 doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7317.829
- Research Methods & Reporting Published: 21 July 2009; BMJ 339 doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700
- Research Published: 28 March 2011; BMJ 342 doi:10.1136/bmj.d1569
- Research Published: 20 August 2012; BMJ 345 doi:10.1136/bmj.e5155
- Letter Published: 16 November 2006; BMJ 333 doi:10.1136/bmj.39030.732917.3A
- Letter Published: 26 October 2006; BMJ 333 doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7574.916
- Letter Published: 26 October 2006; BMJ 333 doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7574.916-a
- Research Methods & Reporting Published: 02 January 2015; BMJ 349 doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647
- Paper Published: 26 February 2000; BMJ 320 doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7234.537
- Education And Debate Published: 22 September 2001; BMJ 323 doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7314.681
- Research Published: 09 December 2020; BMJ 371 doi:10.1136/bmj.m4234
See more
- Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer in individuals with previous colorectal neoplasia: systematic review and network meta-analysisBMJ December 05, 2016, 355 i6188; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6188
- Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysisBMJ December 01, 2016, 355 i6112; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6112
- Sex based subgroup differences in randomized controlled trials: empirical evidence from Cochrane meta-analysesBMJ November 24, 2016, 355 i5826; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5826
- Association between prediabetes and risk of cardiovascular disease and all cause mortality: systematic review and meta-analysisBMJ November 23, 2016, 355 i5953; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5953
- Effects of ischaemic conditioning on major clinical outcomes in people undergoing invasive procedures: systematic review and meta-analysisBMJ November 07, 2016, 355 i5599; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5599
Cited by...
- European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care
- The mornings after--periarticular liposomal bupivacaine infiltration does not improve analgesic outcomes beyond 24 hours following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Financial conflict of interest among clinical practice guideline-producing organisations
- Cochrane authors on drug industry payroll should not be allowed
- Reporting of financial conflicts of interest by Canadian clinical practice guideline producers: a descriptive study
- Association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: systematic review
- Factors underpinning discrepant findings from reviews on the same topic: A systematic analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews
- Physical activity interventions for major chronic disease: a matched-pair analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews
- Choisir les guides de pratique clinique a utiliser
- Choosing guidelines to use in your practice
- Reply to WB Grant
- Epidemiological characteristics and methodological quality of meta-analyses on diabetes mellitus treatment: a systematic review
- Preparing Dental Students and Residents to Overcome Internal and External Barriers to Evidence-Based Practice
- Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey
- Dental Students' Use of AMSTAR to Critically Appraise Systematic Reviews
- Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation
- Characteristics of the Cochrane Oral Health Group Systematic Reviews
- Reporting of conflicts of interest from drug trials in Cochrane reviews: cross sectional study
- The influence of study characteristics on reporting of subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: systematic review
- Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar Literature Searches
- Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review
- Relationships Between Authorship Contributions and Authors' Industry Financial Ties Among Oncology Clinical Trials
- The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
- Preferential publication of editorial board members in medical specialty journals
- Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: When One Study Is Just not Enough
- Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study
- The Year in Epidemiology, Health Services Research, and Outcomes Research
- Drug Meta-Analyses: Who Supports Them Makes a Difference
- Authors' reply on Cochrane reviews v industry supported meta-analyses
- Word limits best explain failings of industry supported meta-analyses
- Interpret Industry-Supported Meta-Analyses with Caution
- Drug Company-Sponsored Research: Buyer Beware!
- Cochrane reviews v industry supported meta-analyses: Has Cochrane really achieved its goals?
- Cochrane reviews v industry supported meta-analyses: We should read all reviews with caution