Archives

Monthly Archive for: ‘November, 2013’

Report back from EU Parliament report launch

By: Paul Whaley|November 26, 2013No Comments

This is later than it should be (interrupted by a nasty dose of the flu and some travel commitments) but we launched our report, Systematic Review and the Future of Evidence in Chemicals Policy, at a lunchtime debate at the European Parliament on 4 November. Kindly hosted by Corinne Lepage MEP (ALDE) it went pretty […]

News and science round-up (November 2013)

By: Paul Whaley|November 25, 2013No Comments

Opinion: Problems with Hidden Conflicts of Interest. When a scientific article has an author or a list of authors, we usually have no reason to wonder who was responsible for the work. But despite increased focus on conflicts of interest (COI), recent events suggest that there may be more to authorship than a list of […]

New report: The future of evidence in chemicals policy

By: Paul Whaley|November 5, 20134 Comments

What we did We analysed two of EFSA’s Scientific Opinions on BPA to determine whether the methodology they followed for evaluating evidence of BPA’s toxicity are consistent with scientific standards for literature review, as defined by Cochrane Reviews in medicine. DOWNLOAD THE REPORT HERE We found that they are not consistent with these standards. Therefore, […]

News & Research Feed

Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis | Systematic Reviews | Full Text
In this practical guide, we provide an overview of current machine learning methods that have been proposed to expedite evidence synthesis. We also offer guidance on which of these are ready for use, their strengths and weaknesses, and how a systematic review team might go about using them in practice.
Letter re: stratification of meta-analyses based on risk of bias is appropriate and does not induce selection bias - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
We read, “Stratification by quality induces selection bias in a meta-analysis of clinical trials” by Stone et al. [1] with interest. We think that the authors have misunderstood the implications of their findings and that their conclusions could mislead authors of systematic reviews.
Reporting quality in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: a systematic review: Current Medical Research and Opinion: Vol 0, No 0
Out of 7702 search results, 65 SRs were included and evaluated with the PRISMA checklist. Overall, the mean overall quality score of reported items of the PRISMA checklist was 68%. We have noticed an increasing pattern in the numbers of published SRs of in vitro studies over the last 10 years. In contrast, the reporting […]
Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate
We analyzed judgments for performance bias of 10 429 RCTs included in 718 Cochrane reviews. Overall, 1828 out of 6918 judgments (26%) for performance bias were not in line with the Cochrane Handbook and were therefore considered inadequate.
Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability
We found very high inconsistency in methods of appraising risk of attrition bias in recent Cochrane reviews. Systematic review authors need clear guidance about different categories they should assess and judgments for those explanations.
Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey
Only a small proportion of DRMAs completed protocol registration or development, and those with protocol were better reported than those not. Protocol registration or development is highly desirable.