Major mistakes and errors in the use of Trial Sequential Analysis in systematic reviews or meta-analyses – protocol for a systematic review

被引:0
作者
Christian Gunge Riberholt
Markus Harboe Olsen
Joachim Birch Milan
Christian Gluud
机构
[1] Copenhagen University Hospital − Rigshospitalet,Department of Neurorehabilitation, Traumatic Brain Injury
[2] Copenhagen University Hospital − Rigshospitalet,Department of Neuroanaesthesiology, Neuroscience Centre
[3] The Capital Region,Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research
[4] Copenhagen University Hospital − Rigshospitalet,undefined
来源
Systematic Reviews | / 11卷
关键词
Meta analysis; Methodology; Systematic review; Trial Sequential Analysis;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 126 条
[1]  
Garattini S(2016)Evidence-based clinical practice: Overview of threats to the validity of evidence and how to minimise them Eur J Intern Med 32 13-21
[2]  
Jakobsen JC(2016)The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses Milbank Q 94 485-514
[3]  
Wetterslev J(2008)Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses J Clin Epidemiol 61 763-769
[4]  
Bertelé V(2014)Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods BMC Med Res Methodol 14 120-67
[5]  
Banzi R(2016)Meta-analysis on continuous outcomes in minimal important difference units: an application with appropriate variance calculations J Clin Epidemiol 80 57-865
[6]  
Rath A(2015)The knowledge system underpinning healthcare is not fit for purpose and must change BMJ. 350 h2463-989
[7]  
Ioannidis JPA(2008)Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews J Clin Epidemiol 61 857-93
[8]  
Brok J(2013)The impact of study size on meta-analyses: Examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews PLOS ONE 8 e59202-59
[9]  
Thorlund K(2011)Statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews of anaesthesia interventions: a quantification and comparison between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews Plos One 6 e28422-286
[10]  
Gluud C(2001)Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses Ann Intern Med 135 982-298