Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses?

Peter Gøtzsche and John Ioannidis argue that it is not always sensible to include subject experts as authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

[1]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Primary study authors of significant studies are more likely to believe that a strong association exists in a heterogeneous meta-analysis compared with methodologists. , 2012, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  P. Gøtzsche.  Mammography screening: truth, lies, and controversy , 2012, The Lancet.

[3]  Peter C Gøtzsche,et al.  Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it , 2011, Trials.

[4]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Comparison of effect sizes associated with biomarkers reported in highly cited individual articles and in subsequent meta-analyses. , 2011, JAMA.

[5]  A. Scialli,et al.  Promotional Tone in Reviews of Menopausal Hormone Therapy After the Women's Health Initiative: An Analysis of Published Articles , 2011, PLoS medicine.

[6]  P. Gøtzsche,et al.  General health checks for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease , 2011 .

[7]  Laura A. Levit,et al.  Finding what works in health care : standards for systematic reviews , 2011 .

[8]  A. Fugh-Berman,et al.  The Haunting of Medical Journals: How Ghostwriting Sold “HRT” , 2010, PLoS medicine.

[9]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Partisan Perspectives in the Medical Literature: A Study of High Frequency Editorialists Favoring Hormone Replacement Therapy , 2010, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[10]  Amy T. Wang,et al.  Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[11]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Persistent reservations against contradicted percutaneous coronary intervention indications: citation content analysis. , 2009, American heart journal.

[12]  Veronica Yank,et al.  Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Conservative Therapy in Nonacute Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis , 2005, Circulation.

[14]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  Christopher Martyn,et al.  A Short History of Nearly Everything , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  H. Ullum,et al.  Effects of CCR5- 32, CCR2-64I, and SDF-1 3A Alleles on HIV-1 Disease Progression: An International Meta-Analysis of Individual-Patient Data , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  A. Zietman,et al.  Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. , 2000, JAMA.

[18]  L. Opie.  Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  G. Guyatt,et al.  The Science of Reviewing Research a , 1993, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[20]  F. Mosteller,et al.  A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. , 1992, JAMA.

[21]  David M. Eddy,et al.  Meta-analysis by the confidence profile method , 1992 .