Talk:Cochrane Library

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Criticism section[edit]

I recently added this edit and it was deleted with the comment that it was too general to include:


A 2011 study done to disclose possible conflicts of interests in underlying research studies used for medical meta-analyses reviewed 29 meta-analyses and found that conflicts of interests in the studies underlying the meta-analyses were rarely disclosed. The 29 meta-analyses included 11 from general medicine journals; 15 from specialty medicine journals, and 3 from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The 29 meta-analyses reviewed an aggregate of 509 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of these, 318 RCTs reported funding sources with 219 (69%) industry funded. 132 of the 509 RCTs reported author conflict of interest [COI] disclosures, with 91 studies (69%) disclosing industry financial ties with one or more authors. The information was, however, seldom reflected in the meta-analyses. Only two (7%) reported RCT funding sources and none reported RCT author-industry ties. The authors concluded “without acknowledgment of COI due to industry funding or author industry financial ties from RCTs included in meta-analyses, readers’ understanding and appraisal of the evidence from the meta-analysis may be compromised.” Noting that most assessment tools for meta-analysis do not include a domain for study funding source the authors state: “Currently, The Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias tool includes an optional 'other sources of bias' domain, which meta-analysts could use to include information on COIs. We recommend that The Cochrane Collaboration consider formalizing the requirement to assess potential bias from COIs.”[6]

I'd like some feedback. Do editors feel it is appropriate? Perhaps appropriate if only mentioned in the article rather than such a long edit? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I deleted it, because this concerns a much wider issue and is not really a criticism specifically of the Cochrane Library, I feel. --Crusio (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is a wider issue, however considering that the Cochrane reviews are mentioned and even singled out in the author's recommendation, it seems to me to be appropriate. I know that when we edit medical articles here in Wikipedia, they are given priority. I sure had no idea that they do not include and take into consideration this information. I do know that when I look at individual studies I always check to see who funded them and industry ties, if any, to the authors. Gandydancer (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

suspicious of anything Cochrane[edit]

Suspicious of Cochrane - occasionally see references to either Cochrane or Wiley and when I try to follow those links, I find out that the sites require fee based subscriptions - hmm, so how does one investigate / verify / fact-check statements made in a given wiki article - if one doesn't have free access to the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)