Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17147949›Full record

ArticleUgeskrift for laeger2006

[Cochrane reviews compared with industry-supported and other meta-analyses of the same drugs--secondary publication].

Anders W Jørgensen, Jørgen Hilden, Peter C Gøtzsche

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed
In one paragraph

Article in Ugeskrift for laeger, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. What is the impact of financial conflicts of interest on the development of psychiatry?World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2007
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anders W JørgensenDet Nordiske Cochrane Center, H:S Rigshospitalet, Afdeling 7112, DK-2100 København Ø. pcg@cochrane.dk.
Jørgen Hilden
Peter C Gøtzsche

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Identifiers

PMID17147949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.