 |
|
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Peter Jüni, MD;
Anne Witschi, MD;
Ralph Bloch, MD, PhD;
Matthias Egger, MD, MSc
JAMA. 1999;282:1054-1060.
ABSTRACT
| |
Context Although it is widely recommended that clinical trials undergo some type of quality review, the number and variety of quality assessment scales that exist make it unclear how to achieve the best assessment.
Objective To determine whether the type of quality assessment scale used affects the conclusions of meta-analytic studies.
Design and Setting Meta-analysis of 17 trials comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with standard heparin for prevention of postoperative thrombosis using 25 different scales to identify high-quality trials. The association between treatment effect and summary scores and the association with 3 key domains (concealment of treatment allocation, blinding of outcome assessment, and handling of withdrawals) were examined in regression models.
Main Outcome Measure Pooled relative risks of deep vein thrombosis with LMWH vs standard heparin in high-quality vs low-quality trials as determined by 25 quality scales.
Results Pooled relative risks from high-quality trials ranged from 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.90) to 0.90 (95% CI, 0.67-1.21) vs 0.52 (95% CI, 0.24-1.09) to 1.13 (95% CI, 0.70-1.82) for low-quality trials. For 6 scales, relative risks of high-quality trials were close to unity, indicating that LMWH was not significantly superior to standard heparin, whereas low-quality trials showed better protection with LMWH (P<.05). Seven scales showed the opposite: high quality trials showed an effect whereas low quality trials did not. For the remaining 12 scales, effect estimates were similar in the 2 quality strata. In regression analysis, summary quality scores were not significantly associated with treatment effects. There was no significant association of treatment effects with allocation concealment and handling of withdrawals. Open outcome assessment, however, influenced effect size with the effect of LMWH, on average, being exaggerated by 35% (95% CI, 1%-57%; P=.046).
Conclusions Our data indicate that the use of summary scores to identify trials of high quality is problematic. Relevant methodological aspects should be assessed individually and their influence on effect sizes explored.
INTRODUCTION
Although randomized controlled trials provide the best evidence of the efficacy of medical interventions, they are not immune to bias. Studies relating methodological features of trials to their results have shown that trial quality influences effect sizes. For populations of trials examining treatments in myocardial infarction,1 perinatal medicine,2 and various disease areas,3 it has consistently been shown that inadequate concealment of treatment allocation, resulting, for example, from the use of open random-number tables, is associated on average with larger treatment effects. One of these studies2 also found larger average effect sizes if trials were not double-blind. Analyses of individual trials suggest that in some instances effect sizes are also overestimated if some participants, for example, those not adhering to study medications, were excluded from the analysis.4-6 Informal qualitative research has indicated that investigators sometimes undermine the random allocation of study participants, for example, by opening assignment envelopes or holding translucent envelopes up to a light bulb.7 In response to this situation, guidelines on the conduct and reporting of clinical trials and scales to measure the quality of published trials have been developed.8-9
The quality of trials is of obvious relevance to meta-analysis. If the raw material used is flawed, then the conclusions of meta-analytic studies will be equally invalid. Following the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and other experts in the field,10-12 many meta-analysts assess the quality of trials and exclude trials of low methodological quality in sensitivity analyses. In a meta-analysis of trials comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with standard heparin for thromboprophylaxis in general surgery, Nurmohamed et al13 found a significant reduction of 21% in the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with LMWH (P=.012). However, when the analysis was limited to trials with strong methods, as assessed by a scale consisting of 8 criteria, no significant difference between the 2 heparins remained (relative risk [RR] reduction, 9%; P=.38). The authors therefore concluded that "there is at present no convincing evidence that in general surgery patients LMWHs, compared with standard heparin, generate a clinically important improvement in the benefit to risk ratio."13 In contrast, another group of meta-analysts did not consider the quality of trials and concluded that "LMWHs seem to have a higher benefit to risk ratio than unfractionated heparin in preventing perioperative thrombosis."14
Although widely recommended, the method of assessing and incorporating the quality of clinical trials is a matter of ongoing debate.15 This is reflected by the plethora of available instruments. In a search covering the years up to 1993, Moher et al9 identified 25 different quality assessment scales. Most of these scoring systems lack a focused theoretical basis and their objectives are unclear. The scales differ considerably in terms of dimensions covered, size, and complexity, and the weight assigned to the key domains most relevant to the control of bias (randomization, blinding, and withdrawals)16 varies widely (Table 1).
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Characteristics of 25 Scales for Quality Assessment of Clinical Trials
|
|
|
We repeated the meta-analysis of Nurmohamed et al13 using different scales and thus examined whether the type of scale used for assessing the quality of trials affects the conclusions of meta-analytic studies.
METHODS
Scales Used to Assess Trial Quality
We used the 25 scales described by Moher et al.9 When necessary, we adapted items that were developed for specific situations. For example, 1 item in a scale developed to assess trials of corticosteroids in alcoholic hepatitis28 considered the similarity of the prognostic variables total bilirubin, prothrombin time, and hepatic encephalopathy at baseline. We included this item, but considered the variables that Nurmohamed et al13 identified as of prognostic importance (for example, the sex of patients, the duration of operation, and the presence of malignancies). If instructions for use of a quality assessment instrument were unclear, we obtained additional published information or contacted the authors. Ambiguities remained for some scales and we developed our own a priori rules to deal with these situations.
Assessment of Trials
All 17 general surgery trials comparing LMWH with standard heparin that were included in the original meta-analysis were assessed with each of the 25 scales. To maintain comparability with the original meta-analysis,13 we included a single-center report40 from a multicenter study,41 which had erroneously been included in addition to the main report.42 Information on authors, author affiliation, study centers, drugs, results, conclusions, source, year of publication, references, funding, and acknowledgments was concealed by a person unrelated to the study, using a black marker and subsequent photocopying. A few items made unblinding of some of this information (in most cases the results section) necessary. Reports were independently assessed by 2 of the authors (P.J., A.W.). One assessor rated trials in the opposite order, also reversing the sequence of scales. Interobserver reliability was determined for each scale using the intraclass correlation coefficient.43 Disagreements were resolved by consensus.
Data Analysis
We repeated the original meta-analysis using each of the 25 quality assessment scales, keeping all other aspects constant. The same fixed-effects model was used for combining trials, with data being provided by the authors of the original meta-analysis.13 Effect estimates were weighted according to the inverse of their variance. The primary end point was DVT and major bleeding was the secondary end point. We performed stratified analyses dividing trials into high-quality and low-quality groups, using the definitions given by the authors of the scales. If no definitions were available from authors, we considered trials with scores above the median as high quality. We also performed analyses using the median as the cutoff point for all scales. To determine whether the restriction of scales to domains most relevant to the control of bias (randomization, blinding, and withdrawals)16 affects results, we deleted all items that were unrelated to these domains, recalculated scores, and repeated stratified analyses using the median as the cutoff point.
Meta-regression analyses were performed to examine the association of global quality scores with estimated effects on the risk of DVT. The random-effects regression model, described in detail elsewhere,44 relates the treatment effect to study quality, assuming a normal distribution for the residual errors with both a within-study and an additive between-studies component of variance. The between-studies variance was estimated by an iterative procedure, using an estimate that is based on a restricted maximum likelihood method.
We standardized scores by subtracting the median from individual values and dividing the result by the interquartile range. All scores had a standardized distribution with a median of 0 and an interquartile range of 1 and regression coefficients were therefore comparable. For each scale we calculated the expected RR for hypothetical trials with the highest and lowest possible score. As a measure of overall agreement between the 25 scales, we calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient for the standardized scores.43 Finally, we examined the separate influence of the 3 key domains that have been shown to be associated empirically with bias: concealment of treatment allocation,1-3 blinding of outcome assessments,2, 45 and handling of dropouts and withdrawals in the analysis.4-6 Finally, we performed sensitivity analyses using a random-effects model46 for combining trials, inspecting funnel plots, and testing for the presence of publication bias.47
We used Meta-Analyst software (Joseph Lau, Boston, Mass) for fixed-effects meta-analysis and the program Metareg48 in Stata (Stata Corporation, College Station, Tex) for meta-regression analysis. Results are given as RRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All P values are 2-sided.
RESULTS
Trial Quality
Interrater reliability was excellent for most scales. Intraclass correlation coefficients were above 0.9 for 12 scales (48%), 0.8 to 0.9 for 10 scales (40%), and less than 0.8 for 3 scales (12%). The median quality of the 17 trials as assessed by the 25 scales ranged from 38.5% to 82.9% of the maximum score (Table 2). The authors of 16 scales defined a threshold for high quality, with the median threshold corresponding to 60% of the maximum score. Agreement for standardized scores between the 25 scales was substantial (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.59-0.86]).
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Median Scores From 25 Quality Assessment Scales for 17 Trials Comparing Heparins for Thromboprophylaxis in General Surgery, and Thresholds for Definition of High Quality*
|
|
|
Analyses Stratified by Trial Quality
For all trials combined, the RR of DVT comparing LMWH with standard heparin was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.65-0.95) and thus identical to the results of the original analysis.13 Figure 1 shows the results of analyses stratified by quality using the 25 scales. Pooled RRs ranged from 0.63 to 0.90 for high-quality trials, and from 0.52 to 1.13 for low-quality trials. Six scales with pooled RRs of high-quality trials more than 0.79 and CIs overlapping 1 indicated that LMWH was not significantly superior to standard heparin, whereas low-quality trials assessed by these scales showed significantly better protection with LMWH (P<.05). Seven scales showed the opposite: high-quality trials indicated that LMWH was beneficial (P<.05) with RRs of less than 0.79, whereas low-quality trials showed no significant difference. For the remaining 12 scales, pooled results from low-quality and high-quality strata indicated similar effects. Results were not materially altered when using the median score as the cutoff point for high-quality trials throughout. In meta-regression no significant difference in effect estimates between high-quality and low-quality trials was evident for any of the scales used (P>.10). Significant differences in the risk of major bleeding were not observed between the 2 heparins overall or when stratified by quality.
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Results From Sensitivity Analyses Dividing Trials in High- and Low-Quality Strata, Using 25 Different Quality Assessment Scales
Relative risks (RRs) for deep vein thrombosis with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are shown. LMWH indicates low-molecular-weight heparin. Black squares indicate estimates from high-quality trials and open squares indicate estimates from low-quality trials. Arrows indicate that the values are outside the range of the x axis. Broken line indicates combined estimate from all 17 trials. Solid line indicates null effect line. The scales are arranged in decreasing order of the RRs in trials deemed to be of high quality. Asterisk indicates unpublished scale.
|
|
|
Summary Quality Scores and Effect Sizes
Meta-regression analysis confirmed the differences between scales that were observed in the stratified analysis. The coefficients (per point increase of standardized scores) ranged from -0.177 to 0.169, demonstrating that depending on the scale used, the effect size either increased or decreased with increasing trial quality. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between RRs and quality scores for 3 scales.17, 29, 31 None of the 25 scales yielded a statistically significant association between summary scores and effect sizes. For hypothetical trials of maximum quality the RR of DVT comparing LMWH with standard heparin ranged from 0.57 to 0.95, whereas for hypothetical trials of minimum quality RRs ranged from 0.51 to 1.32. Heterogeneity between scales was reduced little when restricting scales to the domains most relevant to the control of bias (randomization, blinding, and withdrawals): RRs for DVT ranged from 0.63 to 0.98 for high-quality trials and from 0.68 to 0.89 for low-quality trials.
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Examples of Weighted Regression Analyses of 17 Trials Comparing Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin With Standard Heparin
Relative risks (on logarithmic scale) are regressed against standardized scores from the scales described by Jadad et al29 (top), Andrew17 (middle), and Koes et al31 (bottom). The size of the circle is proportional to the weighting factor (inverse of the variance).
|
|
|
Key Domains and Effect Sizes
The association between methodological key domains and estimates of treatment effects on the risk of DVT is explored in Table 3. There was no significant association with allocation concealment and handling of dropouts and withdrawals. Trials with open assessment of the outcome, however, overestimated treatment effects by 35% (95% CI, 1%-57%; P=.046). This association remained when all 3 key domains were included in a multivariate analysis (P=.030). Meta-analysis of the 6 trials with open assessment of DVT suggested that LMWH was superior to standard heparin with an RR of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.42-0.84; P=.004). Conversely, the 11 trials with blinded outcome assessment showed no significant difference (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11; P=.29).
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Results From Univariate Meta-Regression Analysis Relating Methodological Key Domains to Effect Sizes in 17 Trials Comparing Heparins for Thromboprophylaxis in General Surgery*
|
|
|
COMMENT
Meta-analysis is widely used to summarize the evidence on the benefits and risks of medical interventions. However, the findings of several meta-analyses of small trials have been contradicted subsequently by large controlled trials.47, 49-51 The fallibility of meta-analysis is not surprising, considering the various biases that may be introduced by the process of locating and selecting studies, including publication bias,52 language bias,53 and citation bias.54 Low methodological quality of component studies is another potential source of systematic error. The critical appraisal of trial quality is therefore widely recommended and a large number of different instruments are currently in use. In a hand search of 5 general medicine journals dating 1993 to 1997 (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) we identified 37 meta-analyses using 26 different instruments to assess trial quality.
Our study shows that the type of scale used to assess trial quality can dramatically influence the interpretation of meta-analytic studies. Using 25 different scales, we reanalyzed a meta-analysis which, based on trials considered to be of high methodological quality, found little difference between LMWH and standard heparin in the prevention of postoperative thrombosis. Whereas for some scales these findings were confirmed, the use of others would have led to opposite conclusions, indicating that the beneficial effect of LMWH was particularly robust for trials deemed to be of high quality. Similarly, in meta-regression analysis effect size was negatively associated with some quality scores, but positively associated with others. Accordingly, RRs estimated for hypothetical trials of maximum or minimum quality varied widely between scales.
These discrepant results are not surprising when considering the heterogeneous nature of the instruments.15 Many scales include items that are more closely related to reporting quality, ethical issues, or to the interpretation of results rather than to the internal validity of trials. For example, some scales assessed whether the rationale for conducting the trial was clearly stated, whether the trialists' conclusions were compatible with the results obtained, or whether the report stated that participants provided written informed consent. Important differences also exist between scales that focus on internal validity. For example, the scale developed by Jadad et al,29 which has been widely advocated,3, 9, 15 gives more weight to the quality of reporting than to actual methodological quality. A statement on withdrawals and dropouts will earn the point allocated to this domain, independently of whether the data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The instrument addresses randomization but does not assess allocation concealment. The use of an open random-number table would thus be considered equivalent to concealed randomization using a telephone or computer system and earn the maximum points foreseen for randomization. Conversely, the scale developed by Chalmers et al20 allocates 0 points for unconcealed but the maximum of 3 points for concealed randomization. The authors of the different scales clearly had different perceptions of trial quality, but definitions were rarely given, and the ability of the scales to measure what they are supposed to measure remains unclear.
Our study was based on a single meta-analysis and, strictly speaking, the results are only applicable to the 17 trials examined. It is unlikely, however, that agreement across scales would be better in other situations. Interestingly, in a recent review of treatment effects from trials deemed to be of high or low quality, Kunz and Oxman55 found that in some meta-analyses there were no differences whereas in other meta-analyses high-quality trials showed either larger or smaller effects. In 1 analysis evaluating the effect of antiestrogen treatment in male infertility, the results were reversed with adverse effects on pregnancy rates in studies of high quality.56 Different scales had been used for assessing quality and, in light of our study, it is possible that the choice of the scale contributed to the discrepant associations observed in these meta-analyses.
In our sample of trials we found that blinding of outcome assessment was the only factor significantly associated with effect size, with RRs on average being exaggerated by 35% if outcome assessment was open. When restricting the analysis to 11 trials with blinded outcome assessment, no significant difference between the 2 heparins was evident indicating that in general surgery patients, the 2 heparins may be equally effective. This was recently confirmed in an updated meta-analysis that included 25 double-blind trials.57 The combined odds ratio for DVT was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.83-1.18). It is now generally agreed that the advantages of LMWH (reduced risk of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia58 and convenience of once daily dosing) must be balanced against the greater cost of LMWH.59
The importance of blinding could have been anticipated considering that the interpretation of the test (fibrinogen leg scanning) used to detect DVT can be subjective.60 In other situations, blinding of outcome assessment may be irrelevant, such as when examining the effect of an intervention on overall mortality. In contrast to studies including large numbers of trials,1-3 we did not find a significant association of concealment of treatment allocation with effect estimates. Our meta-analysis could have been too small to show this effect. Alternatively, concealment of treatment allocation may not have been relevant in the context of our study. The importance of allocation concealment may to some extent depend on whether strong beliefs exist among investigators regarding the benefits or risks of assigned treatments or whether equipoise of treatments is accepted by all investigators involved.7 Strong beliefs are probably more prevalent in trials comparing an intervention with placebo than in trials comparing 2 similar, active interventions. Other aspects may need to be considered in specific situations, such as whether the trial was terminated prematurely, the tests used for measuring end points, or the type of statistical model used. The importance of individual quality domains and, possibly, the direction of potential biases associated with these domains will thus vary according to the context, and the mechanistic application of scales with fixed weights allocated to a standard set of items may dilute, or entirely miss, associations.61 Indeed, in our sample of 17 trials none of the 25 composite scales was significantly associated with treatment effect. Many meta-analysts probably would have dismissed trial quality as a source of bias based on the analysis of summary scores and concluded that there was robust evidence favoring LMWH.
Although improved reporting practices should facilitate the assessment of methodological quality in the future, incomplete reporting continues to be an important problem when assessing trial quality.8 Because small single-center studies may be more likely to be of inadequate quality and more likely to be reported inadequately than large multicenter studies, the sample size and number of study centers may sometimes be useful proxy variables for study quality. Analyzing the effect of sample size will also shed light on the possible presence of publication bias.47 One should not forget, however, that associations between domains of trial quality and treatment effects are subject to the potential biases of observational studies. Confounding could exist between measures of trial quality and other characteristics of trials, such as the setting, the characteristics of the participants, or the treatments.
The use of quality scores as weights when pooling studies has also been advocated, such as multiplying scores with the precision of effect estimates.3 Such procedures will affect both the combined effect estimate and its CI. As could be expected, we obtained different results depending on the scale used as the weighting factor when performing such analyses (data not shown). As pointed out previously by Detsky et al,24 the incorporation of quality scores as weights lacks statistical or empirical justification.
CONCLUSIONS
The assessment of the methodological quality of randomized trials and the conduct of sensitivity analyses should be considered routine procedures in meta-analysis. Although composite quality scales may provide a useful overall assessment when comparing populations of trials, for example, trials published in different languages or disciplines, such scales should not generally be used to identify trials of apparent low quality or high quality in a given meta-analysis.61 Rather, the relevant methodological aspects should be identified, ideally a priori, and assessed individually. This should always include the key domains of concealment of treatment allocation, blinding of outcome assessment or double blinding, and handling of withdrawals and dropouts. Finally, the lack of well-performed and adequately sized trials cannot be remedied by statistical analyses of small trials of questionable quality.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Acknowledgment: We are indebted to Bettina Lässer, RN, for obtaining and concealing primary trials, data entering, and checking; to Christoph Minder, PhD, for statistical advice; and to Michael Nurmohamed, MD, for providing unpublished data. We thank Erik Andrew, PhD, Sharon Brown, PhD, Mildred Cho, PhD, Allan Detsky, PhD, Steven Goodman, PhD, Peter Gøtzsche, MD, Wayne Jonas, MD, Jos Kleijnen, PhD, Bart Koes, PhD, Klaus Linde, MD, Patrick Onghena, PhD, Alan Pollock, ChB, Thierry Poynard, PhD, and Gerben ter Riet, PhD, for additional information on their scales. Finally, we are grateful to Iain Chalmers, MBBS, Peter Gøtzsche, MD, Nicola Low, MBBS, and 2 anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.
Author Contributions: Dr Jüni had main responsibility for the study protocol and performed statistical analyses and quality assessments. Dr Witschi participated in protocol development and assessed the quality of primary trials. Dr Bloch contributed to protocol development and supervised the study. Dr Egger reviewed the protocol and performed statistical analyses. Drs Jüni and Egger wrote the first draft of the article. All authors were involved in the writing of the final draft. Drs Jüni and Egger are the guarantors of this study.
Corresponding Author and Reprints: Matthias Egger, MD, MSc, Department of Social Medicine, Canynge Hall, Whiteladies Road, Bristol, BS8 2PR England (e-mail: m.egger{at}bristol.ac.uk).
Author Affiliations: Clinical Epidemiology Study Group, Berne, Switzerland (Drs Jüni and Witschi), Institute for Medical Education, University of Berne (Drs Bloch and Jüni); and MRC Health Services Research Collaboration, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, England (Dr Egger).
REFERENCES
| |
1. Chalmers TC, Celano P, Sacks HS, Smith H Jr. Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1983;309:1358-1361.
ABSTRACT
2. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. JAMA. 1995;273:408-412.
FREE FULL TEXT
3. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352:609-613.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
4. Sackett DL, Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1979;301:1410-1412.
ISI
| PUBMED
5. May GS, DeMets DL, Friedman LM, Furberg C, Passamani E. The randomized clinical trial: bias in analysis. Circulation. 1981;64:669-673.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. Peduzzi P, Wittes J, Detre K, Holford T. Analysis as-randomized and the problem of non-adherence. Stat Med. 1993;12:1185-1195.
ISI
| PUBMED
7. Schulz KF. Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;274:1456-1458.
FREE FULL TEXT
8. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637-639.
FREE FULL TEXT
9. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:62-73.
ISI
| PUBMED
10. Mulrow CD, Oxman AD. Cochrane Collaboration handbook [Cochrane Review on CD-ROM]. Oxford, England: Cochrane Library, Update Software; 1998: issue 4.
11. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:167-171.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
12. Pogue J, Yusuf S. Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 1998;351:47-52.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
13. Nurmohamed MT, Rosendaal FR, Buller HR, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopaedic surgery: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 1992;340:152-156.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
14. Leizorovicz A, Haugh MC, Chapuis FR, Samama MM, Boissel JP. Low molecular weight heparin in prevention of perioperative thrombosis. BMJ. 1992;305:913-920.
FREE FULL TEXT
15. Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12:195-208.
ISI
| PUBMED
16. Chalmers I. Applying overviews and meta-analyses at the bedside. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:67-70.
FULL TEXT
17. Andrew E. Method for assessment of the reporting standard of clinical trials with roentgen contrast media. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1984;25:55-58.
18. Beckerman H, de Bie RA, Bouter LM, de Cuyper HJ, Oostendorp RAB. The efficacy of laser therapy for musculoskeletal and skin disorders. Phys Ther. 1992;72:483-491.
FREE FULL TEXT
19. Brown SA. Measurement of quality of primary studies for meta-analysis. Nurs Res. 1991;40:352-355.
ISI
| PUBMED
20. Chalmers I, Adams M, Dickersin K, et al. A cohort study of summary reports of controlled trials. JAMA. 1990;263:1401-1405.
FREE FULL TEXT
21. Chalmers TC, Smith H Jr, Blackburn B, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials. 1981;2:31-49.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
22. Cho MK, Bero LA. Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies published in the medical literature. JAMA. 1994;272:101-104.
FREE FULL TEXT
23. Colditz GA, Miller JN, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy, I: medical. Stat Med. 1989;8:441-454.
ISI
| PUBMED
24. Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-265.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
25. Evans M, Pollock AV. A score system for evaluating random control clinical trials of prophylaxis of abdominal surgical wound infection. Br J Surg. 1985;72:256-260.
ISI
| PUBMED
26. Goodman SN, Berlin JA, Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. Manuscript quality before and after peer review and editing at Annals of Internal Medicine. Ann Intern Med. 1994;121:11-21.
FREE FULL TEXT
27. Gøtzsche PC. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:31-56.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
28. Imperiale TF, McCullough AJ. Do corticosteroids reduce mortality from alcoholic hepatitis? Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:299-307.
FREE FULL TEXT
29. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
30. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P, ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homoeopathy. BMJ. 1991;302:316-323.
FREE FULL TEXT
31. Koes BW, Assendelft WJ, van der Heijden GJ, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: a blinded review. BMJ. 1991;303:1298-1303.
FREE FULL TEXT
32. Levine J. Trial assessment procedure scale (TAPS). In: Spilker B, ed. Guide to Clinical Trials. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1991:780-786.
33. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Lancet. 1997;350:834-843.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
34. Onghena P, Van Houdenhove B. Antidepressant-induced analgesia in chronic non-malignant pain. Pain. 1992;49:205-219.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
35. Poynard T. Evaluation de la qualité méthodologique des essais thérapeutiques randomisés. Presse Med. 1988;17:315-318.
ISI
| PUBMED
36. Reisch JS, Tyson JE, Mize SG. Aid to the evaluation of therapeutic studies. Pediatrics. 1989;84:815-827.
FREE FULL TEXT
37. Smith K, Cook D, Guyatt GH, Madhavan J, Oxman AD. Respiratory muscle training in chronic airflow limitation: a meta-analysis. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992;145:533-539.
ISI
| PUBMED
38. Spitzer WO, Lawrence V, Dales R, et al. Links between passive smoking and disease. Clin Invest Med. 1990;13:17-42.
ISI
| PUBMED
39. ter Riet G, Kleijnen J, Knipschild P. Acupuncture and chronic pain: a criteria-based meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:1191-1199.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
40. Verardi S, Cortese F, Baroni B, Boffo V, Casciani CU, Palazzini E. Deep vein thrombosis prevention in surgical patients. Curr Ther Res. 1989;46:366-372.
41. Verardi S, Casciani CU, Nicora E, et al. A multicentre study on LMW-heparin effectiveness in preventing postsurgical thrombosis. Int Angiol. 1988;7:19-24.
ISI
| PUBMED
42. Leizorovicz A, Haugh M, Boissel JP. Meta-analysis and multiple publication of clinical trial reports. Lancet. 1992;340:1102-1103.
ISI
| PUBMED
43. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420-428.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
44. Thompson SG, Sharp S. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med. In press.
45. Noseworthy JH, Ebers GC, Vandervoort MK, Farquhar RE, Yetisir E, Roberts R. The impact of blinding on the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled multiple sclerosis clinical trial. Neurology. 1994;44:16-20.
FREE FULL TEXT
46. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177-188.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
47. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629-634.
FREE FULL TEXT
48. Sharp S. Meta-analysis regression. Stata Techn Bull. 1998;42:16-22.
49. Villar J, Carroli G, Belizàn JM. Predictive ability of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 1995;345:772-776.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
50. Cappelleri JC, Ioannidis JPA, Schmid CH, et al. Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare? JAMA. 1996;276:1332-1338.
FREE FULL TEXT
51. Le Lorier J, Grégoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:536-542.
FREE FULL TEXT
52. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867-872.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
53. Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997;350:326-329.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
54. Gøtzsche PC. Reference bias in reports of drug trials. BMJ. 1987;295:654-656.
ISI
| PUBMED
55. Kunz R, Oxman AD. The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 1998;317:1185-1190.
FREE FULL TEXT
56. Khan KS, Daya S, Jadad A. The importance of quality of primary studies in producing unbiased systematic reviews. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:661-666.
FREE FULL TEXT
57. Koch A, Bouges S, Ziegler S, Dinkel H, Daures JP, Victor N. Low molecular weight heparin and unfractionated heparin in thrombosis prophylaxis after major surgical intervention: update of previous meta-analyses. Br J Surg. 1997;84:750-759.
FULL TEXT
|
ISI
| PUBMED
58. Warkentin TE, Levine MN, Hirsh J, et al. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in patients treated with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:1330-1335.
FREE FULL TEXT
59. Weitz JI. Low-molecular weight heparins. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:688-698.
FREE FULL TEXT
60. Lensing AW, Hirsh J. I125-fibrinogen leg scanning. Thromb Haemost. 1993;69:2-7.
ISI
| PUBMED
61. Greenland S. Quality scores are useless and potentially misleading [reply to re: a critical look at some popular analytic methods]. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:300-302.
FREE FULL TEXT
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati
What's this?
RELATED LETTERS
Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials
Willem J. J. Assendelft, Bart W. Koes, Maurits W. van Tulder, Lex M. Bouter, Gerben ter Riet, Pieter Leffers, Maurice Zeegers, Jan P. Vandenbroucke, Peter Jüni, and Matthias Egger
JAMA. 2000;283(11):1421-1423.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Ethics of Underpowered Clinical Trials
Janine E. Janosky, John R. Hughes, Richard J. Lilford, Scott D. Halpern, Jason H. T. Karlawish, and Jesse A. Berlin
JAMA. 2002;288(17):2118-2119.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Allocation Concealment in Clinical Trials
Kenneth F. Schulz, Douglas G. Altman, David Moher, Peter Jüni, Matthias Egger, Ethan M. Balk, Peter A. L. Bonis, Joseph Lau, and John P. A. Ioannidis
JAMA. 2002;288(19):2406-2409.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prematurity and Later Cognitive Outcomes
Lex W. Doyle, Saroj Saigal, David L. Streiner, Adnan T. Bhutta, Mario Cleves, Patrick H. Casey, and K. J. S. Anand
JAMA. 2002;288(20):2542-2543.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLES
Empirical Evidence of Design-Related Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Tests
Jeroen G. Lijmer, Ben Willem Mol, Siem Heisterkamp, Gouke J. Bonsel, Martin H. Prins, Jan H. P. van der Meulen, and Patrick M. M. Bossuyt
JAMA. 1999;282(11):1061-1066.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Measuring the Quality of Trials: The Quality of Quality Scales
Jesse A. Berlin and Drummond Rennie
JAMA. 1999;282(11):1083-1085.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
September 15, 1999
JAMA. 1999;282(11):1099-1100.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Travel and Risk for Venous Thromboembolism
Chandra et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2009;0:0000605-200908040-00129-E-129.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Comparison of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Fibrinolytic Therapy in ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Bayesian Hierarchical Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies
Huynh et al.
Circulation 2009;119:3101-3109.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation for Acute Myeloid Leukemia in First Complete Remission: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Clinical Trials
Koreth et al.
JAMA 2009;301:2349-2361.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Does exercise increase the risk of upper respiratory tract infections?
Moreira et al.
Br Med Bull 2009;90:111-131.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Comparison of Abciximab and Small-Molecule Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis of Contemporary Randomized Controlled Trials
Gurm et al.
Circ Cardiovasc Intervent 2009;2:230-236.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Review: Methodological quality in medical evidence, quo vadis?
Diaz-Insua
Therapeutic Advances in Urology 2009;1:51-59.
ABSTRACT
Association between change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality: systematic review and meta-regression analysis
Briel et al.
BMJ 2009;338:b92-b92.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Immunoglobulin Prophylaxis in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Raanani et al.
JCO 2009;27:770-781.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Reviewing evidence on complex social interventions: appraising implementation in systematic reviews of the health effects of organisational-level workplace interventions
Egan et al.
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2009;63:4-11.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Screening Colonoscopies by Primary Care Physicians: A Meta-Analysis
Wilkins et al.
Ann Fam Med 2009;7:56-62.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Study Quality Assessment in Systematic Reviews of Research on Intervention Effects
Wells and Littell
Research on Social Work Practice 2009;19:52-62.
ABSTRACT
Interventions to lower the glycemic response to carbohydrate foods with a low-viscosity fiber (resistant maltodextrin): meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Livesey and Tagami
Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2009;89:114-125.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Acupuncture for the Management of Chronic Headache: A Systematic Review
Sun and Gan
Anesth. Analg. 2008;107:2038-2047.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Amitriptyline in the treatment of fibromyalgia: a systematic review of its efficacy
Nishishinya et al.
Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008;47:1741-1746.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Mortality and Events With Statin Treatments A Network Meta-Analysis Involving More Than 65,000 Patients.
Mills et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2008;52:1769-1781.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Attitudes to walking and cycling among children, young people and parents: a systematic review
Lorenc et al.
J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2008;62:852-857.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in General Endocrinology Literature
Rios et al.
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2008;93:3810-3816.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Overviews and Systematic Reviews on Low Back Pain
Chou et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2008;148:791-792.
FULL TEXT
Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Schizophrenia: Effect Sizes, Clinical Models, and Methodological Rigor
Wykes et al.
Schizophr Bull 2008;34:523-537.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Empirical Evidence of Bias in the Design of Experimental Stroke Studies: A Metaepidemiologic Approach
Crossley et al.
Stroke 2008;39:929-934.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review
Olivo et al.
ptjournal 2008;88:156-175.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Perspectives on Evidence-Based Research in Education--What Works? Issues in Synthesizing Educational Program Evaluations
Slavin
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER 2008;37:5-14.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Oral Drug Therapy for Multiple Neglected Tropical Diseases: A Systematic Review
Reddy et al.
JAMA 2007;298:1911-1924.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Meta-Analysis of 16 Randomized Trials of Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease
Schomig et al.
J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:1373-1380.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Regression Effect as a Neglected Source of Bias in Nonrandomized Intervention Trials and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies
Weeks
Eval Health Prof 2007;30:254-265.
ABSTRACT
Meta-analysis of APOE genotype and subarachnoid hemorrhage: Clinical outcome and delayed ischemia
Lanterna et al.
Neurology 2007;69:766-775.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Statins and the Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of 18 Studies Involving More Than 1.5 Million Patients
Bonovas et al.
JCO 2007;25:3462-3468.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Are you reading what we are reading? The effect of who interprets medical images on estimates of diagnostic test accuracy in systematic reviews
Brealey and Westwood
Br. J. Radiol. 2007;80:674-677.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Thyroid Dysfunction and Effects on Coagulation and Fibrinolysis: A Systematic Review
Squizzato et al.
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2007;92:2415-2420.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Systematic Review of the Performance Characteristics of Clinical Event Monitor Signals Used to Detect Adverse Drug Events in the Hospital Setting
Handler et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2007;14:451-458.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Commentary: Assessing the quality of observational studies--or a lesson from Mars
von Elm
Int J Epidemiol 2007;0:dym112v1-2.
FULL TEXT
Meta-analysis: Acupuncture for Osteoarthritis of the Knee
Manheimer et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2007;146:868-877.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A collaborative effort to apply the evidence-based review process to the field of nutrition: challenges, benefits, and lessons learned
Balk et al.
Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007;85:1448-1456.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Sensory re-education after nerve injury of the upper limb: a systematic review
Oud et al.
Clin Rehabil 2007;21:483-494.
ABSTRACT
The Pylorus: Take It or Leave It? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Pylorus-Preserving versus Standard Whipple Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic or Periampullary Cancer
Karanicolas et al.
Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2007;14:1825-1834.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Blinded trials taken to the test: an analysis of randomized clinical trials that report tests for the success of blinding
Hrobjartsson et al.
Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:654-663.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography
Sanderson et al.
Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:666-676.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Meta-analysis: Chondroitin for Osteoarthritis of the Knee or Hip
Reichenbach et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2007;146:580-590.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Health technology assessment in obstetrics and gynaecology. Part 1: an overview of the process
Abedin et al.
The Obstetrician and Gynaecologist 2007;9:109-115.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Parenting programmes for preventing tobacco, alcohol or drugs misuse in children <18: a systematic review
Petrie et al.
Health Educ Res 2007;22:177-191.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Eligibility Criteria of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in High-Impact General Medical Journals: A Systematic Sampling Review
Van Spall et al.
JAMA 2007;297:1233-1240.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Reporting of Outcomes in Orthopaedic Randomized Trials: Does Blinding of Outcome Assessors Matter?
Poolman et al.
JBJS 2007;89:550-558.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Does pravastatin promote cancer in elderly patients? A meta-analysis
Bonovas and Sitaras
CMAJ 2007;176:649-654.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Meta-analysis: Anticoagulant Prophylaxis to Prevent Symptomatic Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Medical Patients
Dentali et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2007;146:278-288.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Quality of Reporting of Cancer Prognostic Marker Studies: Association With Reported Prognostic Effect
Kyzas et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:236-243.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Sleep-Disordered Breathing and Blood Pressure in Children: A Meta-analysis
Zintzaras and Kaditis
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007;161:172-178.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Impact of Adjustment for Quality on Results of Metaanalyses of Diagnostic Accuracy
Leeflang et al.
Clin. Chem. 2007;53:164-172.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Incorporating Quality of Evidence into Decision Analytic Modeling
Braithwaite et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2007;146:133-141.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Economic evaluations of single- versus double-embryo transfer in IVF
Fiddelers et al.
Hum Reprod Update 2007;13:5-13.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Mortality in randomized controlled trials comparing drug-eluting vs. bare metal stents in coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis
Nordmann et al.
Eur Heart J 2006;27:2784-2814.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A systematic review of cephalometric facial soft tissue changes with the Activator and Bionator appliances in Class II division 1 subjects
Flores-Mir and Major
Eur J Orthod 2006;28:586-593.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Intravenous thrombolysis in stroke patients of >=80 versus <80 years of age--a systematic review across cohort studies.
Engelter et al.
Age Ageing 2006;35:572-580.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Acupuncture for peripheral joint osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Kwon et al.
Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006;45:1331-1337.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Statins and Cancer Risk: A Literature-Based Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression Analysis of 35 Randomized Controlled Trials
Bonovas et al.
JCO 2006;24:4808-4817.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Treatments for Later-Life Depressive Conditions: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Pharmacotherapy and Psychotherapy
Pinquart et al.
Am. J. Psychiatry 2006;163:1493-1501.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A background to acupuncture and its use in chronic painful musculoskeletal conditions
White
The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health 2006;126:219-227.
ABSTRACT
Preventing pressure ulcers: a systematic review.
Reddy et al.
JAMA 2006;296:974-984.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Segmental stabilizing exercises and low back pain. What is the evidence? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Rackwitz et al.
Clin Rehabil 2006;20:553-567.
ABSTRACT
Weighing the evidence to formulate dietary guidelines.
Woolf
J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 2006;25:277S-284S.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effects of early treatment with statins on short-term clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Briel et al.
JAMA 2006;295:2046-2056.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Body Mass Index and Adenocarcinomas of the Esophagus or Gastric Cardia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Kubo and Corley
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:872-878.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Depression and Risk for Alzheimer Disease: Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Metaregression Analysis.
Ownby et al.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 2006;63:530-538.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease and Absence of Heart Failure or Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: An Overview of Long-term Randomized Controlled Trials.
Danchin et al.
Arch Intern Med 2006;166:787-796.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Bias in Clinical Intervention Research
Gluud
Am J Epidemiol 2006;163:493-501.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Insulin Therapy and In-Hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Pittas et al.
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2006;30:164-172.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effects of Low-Carbohydrate vs Low-Fat Diets on Weight Loss and Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Nordmann et al.
Arch Intern Med 2006;166:285-293.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Excess risk of fatal coronary heart disease associated with diabetes in men and women: meta-analysis of 37 prospective cohort studies
Huxley et al.
BMJ 2006;332:73-78.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Use of Statins and Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Seven Randomized Clinical Trials and Nine Observational Studies
Bonovas et al.
JCO 2005;23:8606-8612.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Amiodarone Prophylaxis Reduces Major Cardiovascular Morbidity and Length of Stay after Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis
Aasbo et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2005;143:327-336.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Sirolimus-Eluting Stents vs Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials
Kastrati et al.
JAMA 2005;294:819-825.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Duration of Anticoagulation Following Venous Thromboembolism: A Meta-analysis
Ost et al.
JAMA 2005;294:706-715.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Systematic Review of the Risk Factors for Cervical Artery Dissection
Rubinstein et al.
Stroke 2005;36:1575-1580.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Challenges in Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Topics Related to the Delivery, Organization, and Financing of Health Care
Bravata et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2005;142:1056-1065.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Challenges in Systematic Reviews of Educational Intervention Studies
Reed et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2005;142:1080-1089.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Challenges in Systematic Reviews That Assess Treatment Harms
Chou and Helfand
ANN INTERN MED 2005;142:1090-1099.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Challenges in Using Nonrandomized Studies in Systematic Reviews of Treatment Interventions
Norris and Atkins
ANN INTERN MED 2005;142:1112-1119.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study
Moja et al.
BMJ 2005;330:1053.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Systematic Review of Bariatric Surgery--Reply
Buchwald et al.
JAMA 2005;293:1726-1726.
FULL TEXT
Intra-articular hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: systematic review and meta-analysis
Arrich et al.
CMAJ 2005;172:1039-1043.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effect of Different Antilipidemic Agents and Diets on Mortality: A Systematic Review
Studer et al.
Arch Intern Med 2005;165:725-730.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evidence-based toxicology: a comprehensive framework for causation
Guzelian et al.
Hum Exp Toxicol 2005;24:161-201.
ABSTRACT
Depression as a Risk Factor for Mortality in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease: A Meta-analysis
Barth et al.
Psychosom. Med. 2004;66:802-813.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Interventions to Improve Research Participants' Understanding in Informed Consent for Research: A Systematic Review
Flory and Emanuel
JAMA 2004;292:1593-1601.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Meta-Analysis of Interventions for Medication Adherence to Antihypertensives
Takiya et al.
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2004;38:1617-1624.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Fiorica et al.
Gut 2004;53:925-930.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Challenges for Evidence-Based Physical Therapy: Accessing and Interpreting High-Quality Evidence on Therapy
Maher et al.
ptjournal 2004;84:644-654.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Meta-Analysis of 2-Treatment Clinical Trials Including Both Continuous and Dichotomous Results
Babbs
Med Decis Making 2004;24:299-312.
ABSTRACT
Mesothelioma and Lung Cancer Among Motor Vehicle Mechanics: a Meta-analysis
GOODMAN et al.
ANN OCCUP HYG 2004;48:309-326.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Meta-Analysis: Respiratory Tolerance to Regular {beta}2-Agonist Use in Patients with Asthma
Salpeter et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2004;140:802-813.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Interventions for the prevention of falls in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials
Chang et al.
BMJ 2004;328:680.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
