Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study

Andrea C. Tricco; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Ba’ Pham; Jamie Brehaut; David Moher

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.008

Related publications

Article2017

Flaws in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions were common: a cross-sectional analysis

Matthew J. Page, Douglas G. Altman, Joanne E. McKenzie, Larissa Shamseer, Nadera Ahmadzai, Dianna Wolfe, Fatemeh Yazdi, Ferrán Catalá-López, Andrea C. Tricco, David Moher

Article2025

Data-Sharing Statements Requested from Clinical Trials by Public, Environmental, and Occupational Health Journals: Cross-Sectional Study

Yingxin Liu, Jingyi Zhang, Lehana Thabane, Xuerui Bai, Lili Kang, Professor Gregory Lip, Harriette G.C. Van Spall, Min Xia, Guowei Li

Article2016

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study

Matthew J. Page, Larissa Shamseer, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Margaret Sampson, Andrea C. Tricco, Ferrán Catalá-López, Lun Li, Emma K. Reid, Rafael Sarkis‐Onofre, David Moher

Article2010

Forest plots in reports of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study reviewing current practice

David L. Schriger, Douglas G. Altman, J. A. Vetter, T. Heafner, David Moher

Article2018

Evaluating the methodological characteristics and quality of journal published and non-journal-published rapid reviews: protocol for a comparative, cross-sectional methodological study

Mona Hersi, Adrienne Stevens, Chantelle Garritty, Kusala Pussegoda, Candyce Hamel, Lisa Hartling, Kednapa Thavorn, Andrea C. Tricco, Vivian Welch, David Moher