TY - JOUR

T1 - Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review

AU - Jørgensen, Anders W

AU - Hilden, Jørgen

AU - Gøtzsche, Peter C

N1 - Keywords: Bias (Epidemiology); Conflict of Interest; Drug Industry; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Research Support as Topic; Review Literature as Topic

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B

DO - 10.1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 17028106

VL - 333

SP - 782

JO - B M J (Clinical Research Edition)

JF - B M J (Clinical Research Edition)

SN - 0959-8138

IS - 7572

ER -