- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality
- Lessons learnt on transparency, scientific process and publication ethics. The short story of a long journey to get into the public domain unpublished data, methodological flaws and bias of the Cochrane HPV vaccines review
Ref ID | 709 |
First Author | C. Riva |
Journal | BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE |
Year Of Publishing | 2019 |
URL | https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111119 |
Keywords |
Cochrane Risk of bias Subgroup Disclosure General medical |
Problem(s) |
Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality Unplanned or unjustified subgroup or sensitivity analyses Flawed risk of bias undertaken Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review Financial conflicts of interest of review authors |
Number of systematic reviews included | 1 |
Summary of Findings | Concerns included: studies’ quality not properly assessed; post hoc subgroup analyses presented as randomised controlled trial results; reporting bias not acknowledged; selective reporting not taken into consideration; biased trial designs; unpublished data not included; conflict of interests in the authors’ group; included studies for interventions no longer marketed in the USA |
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? |