Oncology News

Oncology

sponsor
Become a Member Today!
Register
Email:


Password:

Remember me
Forgot your Password?
Invite Code?
Article ID

Your Article Summary

(Click the title below to leave the MDLinx Network and go to the Journal's Website)

Lundh A et al. – Most systematic reviews in the field of pediatric oncology seem to have serious methodological flaws leading to a high risk of bias. While Cochrane systematic reviews were of higher methodological quality than systematic reviews in regular journals, some of them also had methodological problems. Therefore, the methodology of each individual systematic review should be scrutinized before accepting its results.

Related Articles

The effect of study sponsorship on a systematically evaluated body of evidence of head-to-head trials was modest: secondary analysis of a systematic review
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 11/04/09    Relevance Score: 69%

A review of the methodological features of systematic reviews in fetal medicine
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 10/06/09    Relevance Score: 68%

Cross-Topic Learning for Work Prioritization in Systematic Review Creation and Update
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 10/06/09    Relevance Score: 68%

Standing on the shoulders of giants: Introduction to systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Canadian Family Physician, 11/16/09    Relevance Score: 67%

The impact of body mass index on semen parameters and reproductive hormones in human males: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Human Reproduction Update, 11/05/09    Relevance Score: 67%


Sponsor

Article Search

Keyword:

Search:

Published within

Sort By:
Date
Relevance


Sponsor

Sponsor

Send this Summary to a Colleague

Enter email address