ArticleSystematic reviews2017
Comparison of two independent systematic reviews of trials of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2): the Yale Open Data Access Medtronic Project.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Grilling the data: application of specification curve analysis to red meat and all-cause mortality.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2024Pooled it
- Feasibility study and evaluation of expert opinion on the semi-automated meta-analysis and the conventional meta-analysis.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A scoping review on metrics to quantify reproducibility: a multitude of questions leads to a multitude of metrics.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Systematic reviewers' perspectives on replication of systematic reviews: A survey.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
- The REPRISE project: protocol for an evaluation of REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Moral entrepreneurship, the power-knowledge nexus, and the Cochrane "crisis".Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2019Article
- New clinical application of three-dimensional-printed polycaprolactone/β-tricalcium phosphate scaffold as an alternative to allograft bone for limb-sparing surgery in a dog with distal radial osteosarcoma.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIt is uncertain whether the replication of systematic reviews, particularly those with the same objectives and resources, would employ similar methods and/or arrive at identical findings. We compared the results and conclusions of two concurrent systematic reviews undertaken by two independent research teams provided with the same objectives, resources, and individual participant-level data.
methodsTwo centers in the USA and UK were each provided with participant-level data on 17 multi-site clinical trials of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). The teams were blinded to each other's methods and findings until after publication. We conducted a retrospective structured comparison of the results of the two systematic reviews. The main outcome measures included (1) trial inclusion criteria; (2) statistical methods; (3) summary efficacy and risk estimates; and (4) conclusions.
resultsThe two research teams' meta-analyses inclusion criteria were broadly similar but differed slightly in trial inclusion and research methodology. They obtained similar results in summary estimates of most clinical outcomes and adverse events. Center A incorporated all trials into summary estimates of efficacy and harms, while Center B concentrated on analyses stratified by surgical approach. Center A found a statistically significant, but small, benefit whereas Center B reported no advantage. In the analysis of harms, neither showed an increased cancer risk at 48 months, although Center B reported a significant increase at 24 months. Conclusions reflected these differences in summary estimates of benefit balanced with small but potentially important risk of harm.
conclusionsTwo independent groups given the same research objectives, data, resources, funding, and time produced broad general agreement but differed in several areas. These differences, the importance of which is debatable, indicate the value of the availability of data to allow for more than a single approach and a single interpretation of the data. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42012002040 and CRD42012001907 .
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.