The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

The production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has reached epidemic proportions. Possibly, the large majority of produced systematic reviews and meta-analyses are unnecessary, misleading, and/or conflicted.

Connected Papers

Building similarity graph...

Analyzing shared references across papers

Discussion

Authors

John P. A. Ioannidis

Stanford University

Journals

Milbank Quarterly

Actions

Institutions

Stanford University

References and Citations

Connected Papers

Building similarity graph...

Analyzing shared references across papers

Discussion

Cite this study

John P. A. Ioannidis (Thu,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d91f288988aeabbe6842e2 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210

Also consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

Reviewing the reviews. How strong is the evidence? How clear are the conclusions?· 2001 · 72 citations
Reanalyses of Randomized Clinical Trial Data· 2014 · 191 citations
Seeding Trials: Just Say “No”· 2008 · 57 citations
Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta‐epidemiological’ research· 2002 · 390 citations
Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study· 2016 · 824 citations

The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses

Key Points

Abstract

Citation Network

Connected Papers

Discussion

Authors

Journals

Actions

Institutions

References and Citations

Citation Network

Connected Papers

Discussion

Cite this study

Also consider

Also consider