Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2006 Oct 14;333(7572):782.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B. Epub 2006 Oct 6.

Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review

Anders W Jørgensen  1 , Jørgen Hilden, Peter C Gøtzsche
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review

Anders W Jørgensen et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To compare the methodological quality and conclusions in Cochrane reviews with those in industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs.

Design: Systematic 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.

Results: 175 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.

Conclusions: Industry 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Searches for pairs of reviews (first or most obvious reason for exclusion indicated)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Republished in

Comment in

References

    1. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003;326: 1167-70. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289: 454-65. - PubMed
    1. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 2003;290: 921-8. - PubMed
    1. The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Collaboration—principles. www.cochrane.org/docs/tenprinciples.htm (accessed 18 Sept 2006).
    1. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, Klassen TP, Tugwell P, Moher M, et al. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 1998;280: 278-80. - PubMed

Substances