Commentary: Searching for trials for systematic reviews: what difference does it make?
Open Access
- 1 February 2002
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in International Journal of Epidemiology
- Vol. 31 (1) , 123-124
- https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/31.1.123
Abstract
Systematic reviews are increasingly common as a means of assessing the relative effectiveness of health care interventions. This is not least because of the formation of the Cochrane Collaboration with its aim to prepare, maintain and promote the accessibility of reviews in all areas of health care.1 Just as systematic reviews contribute to the practice of evidence-based health care, so should the conduct of reviews be based on good evidence, ideally from empirical research. The paper by Juni et al.2 adds to this evidence base.Keywords
This publication has 6 references indexed in Scilit:
- Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical studyInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 2002
- Revisiting the Cochrane CollaborationBMJ, 2001
- Identifying Randomised TrialsPublished by Wiley ,2001
- meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studiesBMJ, 1998
- Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and GermanThe Lancet, 1997
- Systematic Reviews: Obtaining data from randomised controlled trials: how much do we need for reliable and informative meta-analyses?BMJ, 1994