Archives

Category Archive for: ‘Media Coverage’

In Chemical Watch, talking about quality criteria for animal studies

By: Paul Whaley|June 27, 2013No Comments

Emma Davies at Chemical Watch has put together a nice piece summarising the thoughts of Lisa Bero, professor at the University of California San Francisco’s Department of Clinical Pharmacy Institute for Health Policy Studies (Chemical Watch, 27 June 2013). Bero recently published a paper (Krauth et al. 2013) examining various instruments used for assessing the quality of […]

We’re in Chemical Watch!

By: Paul Whaley|January 24, 2013No Comments

Chemical Watch has run a story about us. Project launched to drive change in review process for chemicals. Transfer techniques from evidence-based medicine, says new think tank. Review techniques used in evidence-based medicine should be transferred to chemical risk assessment to help resolve differences and controversies. This is the message from a new initiative, the Policy […]

EFSA’s perception problem may need more than transparency

By: Paul Whaley|December 28, 2012No Comments

Chemical Watch (20 December 2012) quoted me in response to the adoption by EFSA’s management board of Ernst & Young’s recommendations from their “evaluation of the agency’s ability to provide independent, high quality scientific advice to EU policy-makers.” The quote could use some clarification. What the journalist and I were discussing was the need for […]

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.