Cochraneoversigter sammenlignet med firmastøttede og andre metaanalyser af de samme laegemidler

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Cochraneoversigter sammenlignet med firmastøttede og andre metaanalyser af de samme laegemidler. / Jørgensen, Anders W; Hilden, Jørgen; Gøtzsche, Peter C.

In: Ugeskrift for læger, Vol. 168, No. 48, 2006, p. 4218-20.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Jørgensen, AW, Hilden, J & Gøtzsche, PC 2006, 'Cochraneoversigter sammenlignet med firmastøttede og andre metaanalyser af de samme laegemidler', Ugeskrift for læger, vol. 168, no. 48, pp. 4218-20.

APA

Jørgensen, A. W., Hilden, J., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2006). Cochraneoversigter sammenlignet med firmastøttede og andre metaanalyser af de samme laegemidler. Ugeskrift for læger, 168(48), 4218-20.

Vancouver

Jørgensen AW, Hilden J, Gøtzsche PC. Cochraneoversigter sammenlignet med firmastøttede og andre metaanalyser af de samme laegemidler. Ugeskrift for læger. 2006;168(48):4218-20.

Author

Jørgensen, Anders W ; Hilden, Jørgen ; Gøtzsche, Peter C. / Cochraneoversigter sammenlignet med firmastøttede og andre metaanalyser af de samme laegemidler. In: Ugeskrift for læger. 2006 ; Vol. 168, No. 48. pp. 4218-20.

Bibtex

@article{bccb89d09d4a11debc73000ea68e967b,
title = "Cochraneoversigter sammenlignet med firmast{\o}ttede og andre metaanalyser af de samme laegemidler",
abstract = "24 Cochrane reviews were compared with other, closely matched, meta-analyses of the same drugs. The quality score was highest for Cochrane reviews (7 vs. 2, p < 0.01). Of 8 industry-supported reviews, 7 with conclusions all 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 (p = 0.64). Industry-supported reviews were less transparent, had few reservations about methodological limitations of the included trials, and should be read with caution. Udgivelsesdato: 2006-Nov-27",
author = "J{\o}rgensen, {Anders W} and J{\o}rgen Hilden and G{\o}tzsche, {Peter C}",
year = "2006",
language = "Dansk",
volume = "168",
pages = "4218--20",
journal = "Ugeskrift for Laeger",
issn = "0041-5782",
publisher = "Almindelige Danske Laegeforening",
number = "48",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cochraneoversigter sammenlignet med firmastøttede og andre metaanalyser af de samme laegemidler

AU - Jørgensen, Anders W

AU - Hilden, Jørgen

AU - Gøtzsche, Peter C

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - 24 Cochrane reviews were compared with other, closely matched, meta-analyses of the same drugs. The quality score was highest for Cochrane reviews (7 vs. 2, p < 0.01). Of 8 industry-supported reviews, 7 with conclusions all 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 (p = 0.64). Industry-supported reviews were less transparent, had few reservations about methodological limitations of the included trials, and should be read with caution. Udgivelsesdato: 2006-Nov-27

AB - 24 Cochrane reviews were compared with other, closely matched, meta-analyses of the same drugs. The quality score was highest for Cochrane reviews (7 vs. 2, p < 0.01). Of 8 industry-supported reviews, 7 with conclusions all 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 (p = 0.64). Industry-supported reviews were less transparent, had few reservations about methodological limitations of the included trials, and should be read with caution. Udgivelsesdato: 2006-Nov-27

M3 - Tidsskriftartikel

C2 - 17147949

VL - 168

SP - 4218

EP - 4220

JO - Ugeskrift for Laeger

JF - Ugeskrift for Laeger

SN - 0041-5782

IS - 48

ER -

ID: 14309210