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 These may or may not be published depending on the results.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?