- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
- The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta‐analyses
| Ref ID | 301 |
| First Author | J. Ioannidis |
| Journal | THE MILBANK QUARTERLY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2016 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5020151/pdf/MILQ-94-485.pdf |
| Keywords |
General medical Overlapping reviews/redundancy |
| Problem(s) |
Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 1 |
| Summary of Findings | The authors conduct a search of PubMed to highlight an increase in the publication rate of 2,728% for systematic reviews versus only 153% for all PubMed indexed items between 1991 to 2014. The articles discusses trends in the explosion of publication of meta-analyses more generally but highlights that authors of systematic reviews are increasingly conducted by third-party contractors or consultancy companies, paid for by pharmaceutical companies. These may or may not be published depending on the results. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? |