- 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 The short story of a long journey to get into the public domain unpublished data, methodological flaws and bias of the Cochrane HPV vaccines review
|BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE
|Year Of Publishing
Risk of bias
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
|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trial results; reporting bias not acknowledged; selective reporting not taken into consideration; biased trial designs; unpublished data not included; conflict of interests in the authors’ group; included studies for interventions no longer marketed in the USA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?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?