The need to consider the wider agenda in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: breadth, timing, and depth of the evidence

As well as focusing on a precise question, systematic reviewers also need to consider the whole research programme for the interventions under study argue John Ioannidis and Fotini Karassa

[1]  Shenhong Wu,et al.  Increased risk of high-grade hypertension with bevacizumab in cancer patients: a meta-analysis. , 2010, American journal of hypertension.

[2]  S Dias,et al.  Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis , 2010, Statistics in medicine.

[3]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. , 2010, JAMA.

[4]  Petros P Sfikakis,et al.  The first decade of biologic TNF antagonists in clinical practice: lessons learned, unresolved issues and future directions. , 2010, Current directions in autoimmunity.

[5]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials , 2010, European journal of clinical investigation.

[6]  Shenhong Wu,et al.  Risk of cardiac ischemia and arterial thromboembolic events with the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab in cancer patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials , 2010, Acta oncologica.

[7]  John P.A. Ioannidis,et al.  Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[8]  L. Barra,et al.  Real-World Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, and Ankylosing Spondylitis: Cost-Effectiveness Based on Number Needed to Treat to Improve Health Assessment Questionnaire , 2009, The Journal of Rheumatology.

[9]  Shenhong Wu,et al.  Risk of gastrointestinal perforation in patients with cancer treated with bevacizumab: a meta-analysis. , 2009, The Lancet. Oncology.

[10]  Nicola J Cooper,et al.  Evidence synthesis as the key to more coherent and efficient research , 2009, BMC medical research methodology.

[11]  J. Ioannidis.  Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated , 2008, Epidemiology.

[12]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias , 2008, PloS one.

[13]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Effectiveness of antidepressants: an evidence myth constructed from a thousand randomized trials? , 2008, Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM.

[15]  John Ioannidis,et al.  Exploring the Geometry of Treatment Networks , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[16]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  C. Carroll,et al.  The cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in England and Wales. , 2007, European journal of cancer.

[18]  Ana Marusic,et al.  Clinical trial registration: looking back and moving ahead , 2007, The Lancet.

[19]  Tania B. Huedo-Medina,et al.  Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? , 2006, Psychological methods.

[20]  J. Ioannidis.  Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[21]  Drummond Rennie,et al.  Trial registration: a great idea switches from ignored to irresistible. , 2004, JAMA.

[22]  J. Ioannidis.  Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. , 1998, JAMA.

[23]  S. Pocock,et al.  Stopping rules and estimation problems in clinical trials. , 1988, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  M. Ivimey.  Annual report , 1958, IRE Transactions on Engineering Writing and Speech.