Commentary. Oligognostic mega-analysis. Is Archie turning in his grave?. Issue 4 (August 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Shapiro, Samuel
• Is Part Of: Maturitas. Volume 81:Issue 4(2015:Aug.)
• Page Start: 439
• Page End: 441
• Publication Date: 2015-08
• Subjects: Climacteric -- Periodicals; Menopause -- Periodicals; Climacteric -- Periodicals; Geriatrics -- Periodicals; Menopause -- Periodicals; Middle Aged -- Periodicals; Climatère -- Périodiques; Ménopause -- Périodiques; Climacterium; Climacteric; Menopause; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 612.66
• DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.05.011
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0378-5122

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="author-highlights" id="abs0005"> <title id="sect0005">Highlights</title> <sec> <p id="spar0005"> <list id="lis0005"> <list-item id="lsti0005"> <label></label> <p id="par0005">Cochrane centers that undertake meta-analyses and systematic reviews have been established worldwide.</p> </list-item> <list-item id="lsti0010"> <label></label> <p id="par0010">The meta-analysis of observational studies is seldom valid because of bias, confounding, variable methodology, and lack of transparency.</p> </list-item> <list-item id="lsti0015"> <label></label> <p id="par0015">The meta-analysis of well-conducted short-duration clinical trials can be valid and informative.</p> </list-item> <list-item id="lsti0020"> <label></label> <p id="par0020">The meta-analysis of long-duration trials is seldom valid because of "unblinding" and losses to follow-up.</p> </list-item> <list-item id="lsti0025"> <label></label> <p id="par0025">Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence are not superior to well-conducted conventional reviews.</p> </list-item> </list> </p> </sec> </abstract>