Incorrect blinding assessments are common in meta-analyses published in high impact journals

Ilari Kuitunen; Ville T. Ponkilainen; Mikko Uimonen

doi:10.1111/jebm.12636

Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine ›› 2024, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (3) : 471 -473. DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12636

LETTER

Incorrect blinding assessments are common in meta-analyses published in high impact journals

Ilari Kuitunen ¹^,²^,^†
, Ville T. Ponkilainen ³^,⁴
, Mikko Uimonen ⁴^,⁵

Author information +

History +

PDF

Cite this article

Download citation ▾

Ilari Kuitunen, Ville T. Ponkilainen, Mikko Uimonen. Incorrect blinding assessments are common in meta-analyses published in high impact journals. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2024, 17(3): 471-473 DOI:10.1111/jebm.12636

登录浏览全文

4963

注册一个新账户忘记密码

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within

[1]	SchulzKF,GrimesDA. Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what. Lancet Lond Engl. 2002;359(9307),696–700.

[2]	MuradMH,AsiN, AlsawasM,Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. BMJ Evid-Based Med. 2016;21(4),125–127.

[3]	MukaT,GlisicM, MilicJ, et al. A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35(1),49–60.

[4]	HigginsJPT,AltmanDG, GøtzschePC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

[5]	SterneJAC,Savović J,PageMJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.

[6]	WangY,ParpiaS, CoubanR, et al. Compelling evidence from meta-epidemiological studies demonstrates overestimation of effects in randomized trials that fail to optimize randomization and blind patients and outcome assessors. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;165:111211.

[7]	SavovićJ,TurnerRM, MawdsleyD, et al. Association between risk-of-bias assessments and results of randomized trials in Cochrane reviews: the ROBES meta-epidemiologic study. Am J Epidemiol. 2018;187(5),1113–1122.

[8]	MoustgaardH,ClaytonGL, JonesHE, et al. Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2020;368:l6802.

[9]	GuyattGH,OxmanAD, VistGE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650),924–926.

[10]	GuyattGH,OxmanAD, VistG, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias). J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4),407–415.

[11]	IlariK,KatiR, GualanoMR,De Luca D. Blinding assessments in neonatal ventilation meta-analyses: a systematic meta-epidemiological review. Neonatology. 2024:1–8.

[12]	SchünemannHJ,Wiercioch W,EtxeandiaI, et al. Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise. CMAJ. 2014;186(3),E123–E142.

[13]	FlemingPS,KoletsiD, SeehraJ,Pandis N. Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(7),754–759.

[14]	MuradMH,WangZ. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research. Evid Based Med. 2017;22(4),139–142.

[15]	GuyattG,OxmanAD, AklEA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4),383–394.

[16]	MartimbiancoALC,Sá KMM,SantosGM,SantosEM,PachecoRL, RieraR. Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane’s risk of bias 2.0 tool. Rev Assoc Medica Bras 1992. 2023;69(3),469–472.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine published by Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.