Scinovex
article Open AccessTop 1% cited

Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

BMJ · 2008 · Vol. 336(7644) · pp. 601–605
Lesley WoodMatthias EggerLise Lotte GluudKenneth F. SchulzPeter JüniDouglas G. AltmanChristian GluudRichard M. MartinAnthony J G WoodJonathan A C Sterne

Abstract

The average bias associated with defects in the conduct of randomised trials varies with the type of outcome. Systematic reviewers should routinely assess the risk of bias in the results of trials, and should report meta-analyses restricted to trials at low risk of bias either as the primary analysis or in conjunction with less restrictive analyses.

Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsBlindingMeta-analysisOdds ratioMedicinePsychological interventionPublication biasRandomized controlled trialEpidemiologyOddsClinical trial

MeSH terms

Double-Blind MethodMeta-Analysis as TopicBiasOdds RatioRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Funding

  • Medical Research Council
Citations
2,537
FWCI
144.27
field-weighted impact
References
30
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.