• Anna-Bettina Haidich, Dimitrios Pilalas, Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis, and John P A Ioannidis.
• Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece.
• J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Apr 1; 66 (4): 371-8.

ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which meta-analysis publications of drugs and biologics focus on specific named agents or even only a single agent, and identify characteristics associated with such focus.Study Design And SettingWe evaluated 499 articles with meta-analyses published in 2010 and estimated how many did not cover all the available comparisons of tested interventions for a given condition (not all-inclusive); focused on specific named agent(s), or focused strictly on comparisons of only one specific active agent vs. placebo/no treatment or different doses/schedules.ResultsOf 499 eligible articles, 403 (80.8%) were not all-inclusive, 214 (42.9%) covered only specific named agent(s), and 74 (14.8%) examined only comparisons with one active agent vs. placebo/no treatment or different doses/schedules. Only 39 articles (7.8%) covered all possible indications for the examined agent(s). After adjusting for type of treatment/field, focus on specific named agent(s) was associated with publication in journal venues (odds ratio [OR]: 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-3.26) vs. Cochrane, industry sponsoring (OR: 3.94; 95% CI: 1.66-10.66), and individual patient data analyses (OR: 6.59; 95% CI: 2.24-19.39). Individual patient data analyses primarily (29/34) focused on specific named agent(s).ConclusionThe scope of meta-analysis publications frequently is narrow and shaped to serve particular agents.Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Inc.

6 keywords...

hide…