SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2006
Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 127 papers, 27 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
127 citing papers in PubMed, 27 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between e-cigarette use and cigarette abstinence or changes in continued cigarette smoking among individuals who smoke cigarettes.Harm reduction journal · 2026Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between e-cigarette use among non-tobacco users and initiating smoking of combustible cigarettes.Harm reduction journal · 2024Pooled it
- A rapid review of the barriers and facilitators of mental health service access among Veterans and their families.Frontiers in health services · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Is the Psychopathic Brain an Artifact of Coding Bias? A Systematic Review.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Pooled it
- Association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Pooled it
- Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Industry-funded versus non-profit-funded critical care research: a meta-epidemiological overview.Intensive care medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2015Pooled it
- An assessment of the methodological quality of published network meta-analyses: a systematic review.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Disclosure of Financial Conflicts of Interests in Interventions to Improve Child Psychosocial Health: A Cross-Sectional Study.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts.PLoS medicine · 2013Guideline
- Human recombinant protein C for severe sepsis and septic shock in adult and paediatric patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- The influence of study characteristics on reporting of subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2011Pooled it
- NSAIDs.BMJ clinical evidence · 2010Pooled it
- The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2010Pooled it
- Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2010Pooled it
67 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Reprinted as
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the methodological quality and conclusions in Cochrane reviews with those in industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs.
designSystematic 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.
results175 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.
conclusionsIndustry 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.