Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,113

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses

Brok, Jesper, Thorlund, Kristian, Gluud, Christian, Wetterslev, Jørn·2008·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.007

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. Young, 2005, Putting clinical trials into context, Lancet, 366, 107, 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66846-8 · DOI · Paper page
  2. LeLorier, 1997, Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials, N Engl J Med, 337, 536, 10.1056/NEJM199708213370806 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Goodman, 1991, Have you ever meta-analysis you didn't like?, Ann Intern Med, 114, 244, 10.7326/0003-4819-114-3-244 · DOI
  4. Ioannidis, 2005, Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research, JAMA, 294, 218, 10.1001/jama.294.2.218 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Kjaergard, 2001, Reported methodological quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses, Ann Intern Med, 135, 982, 10.7326/0003-4819-135-11-200112040-00010 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Montori, 2005, Randomised trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review, JAMA, 294, 2203, 10.1001/jama.294.17.2203 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Wetterslev, 2008, Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis, J Clin Epidemiol, 61, 64, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.013 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Pogue, 1998, Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, Lancet, 351, 47, 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)08461-4 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Devereaux, 2005, How strong is the evidence for the use of perioperative beta blockers in non-cardiac surgery? Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, BMJ, 331, 313, 10.1136/bmj.38503.623646.8F · DOI · Paper page
  10. Egger, 1998, Meta-analysis. Is moving the goal post the answer?, Lancet, 351, 1517, 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)78914-5 · DOI
  11. Brok, 2007, Agreement between Cochrane Neonatal Group reviews and clinical guidelines for newborns at a Copenhagen University Hospital, Acta Paediatr, 96, 39, 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00035.x · DOI
  12. 2004, Vol. 4
  13. DeMets, 1987, Methods for combining randomized clinical trials: strengths and limitations, Stat Med, 6, 341, 10.1002/sim.4780060325 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Soll RF, Sinclair JC, Bracken MB, Horbar JD, Haughton DE. The Editorial Team Neonatal Group. The Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. About the Cochrane Collaboration (Collaborative Review Groups (CRGs)). Issue 4. Art. No.: NEONATAL. Available at http://neonatal.cochrane.org/en/index.html. Accessed Nov 14, 2007.
  15. Engels, 2000, Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses, Stat Med, 19, 1707, 10.1002/1097-0258(20000715)19:13<1707::AID-SIM491>3.0.CO;2-P · doi:10.1002/1097-0258(20000715)19:13<1707::aid-sim491>3.0.co;2-p
  16. Alderson, 2004, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, BMJ, 328, 476, 10.1136/bmj.328.7438.476 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Moja, 2005, Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study, BMJ, 330, 1053, 10.1136/bmj.38414.515938.8F · DOI · Paper page
  18. Doust, 2004, Why do doctors use treatments that do not work?, BMJ, 328, 474, 10.1136/bmj.328.7438.474 · DOI
  19. Fedorov, 2005, The design of multicentre trials, Stat Methods Med Res, 14, 205, 10.1191/0962280205sm399oa · DOI
  20. Ioannidis, 2001, Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas, JAMA, 285, 437, 10.1001/jama.285.4.437 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Ho, 2002, Continuous distending pressure for respiratory distress syndrome in preterm infants, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 10.1002/14651858.CD002271 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Finer, 2001, Nitric oxide for respiratory failure in infants born at or near term, Cochrane Database Syst Rev
  23. Soll, 2001, Natural surfactant extract versus synthetic surfactant for neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 10.1002/14651858.CD000144 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000144
  24. Darlow, 2002, Vitamin A supplementation for preventing morbidity and mortality in very low birthweight infants, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 10.1002/14651858.CD000501 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 1,113

Metadata

Authors
Brok, J., Thorlund, K., Gluud, C., & Wetterslev, J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-08
Volume
61
Issue
8
Pages
763-769
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.007
OpenAlex
W2049852456
Cited by
1,113
References
14
FWCI
31.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.007
The paper
Brok, J., Thorlund, K., Gluud, C., & Wetterslev, J. (2008). Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.007

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.