The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068
The SOLVD Investigators* (1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199108013250501 · Cited by 8,029
(1992) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199209033271003 · Cited by 3,725
Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials
Yusuf, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J., Collins, R., & Sleight, P. (1985) · Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7 · Cited by 3,205
Self-citationDiscrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials
GORDON LAN, K. K., & DEMETS, D. L. (1983) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/70.3.659 · Cited by 2,310
Cumulative Meta-Analysis of Therapeutic Trials for Myocardial Infarction
Lau, J., Antman, E. M., Jimenez-Silva, J., Kupelnick, B., Mosteller, F., & Chalmers, T. C. (1992) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199207233270406 · Cited by 1,140
CHALMERS, I. (1993) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26345.x · Cited by 561
Pogue, J. M., & Yusuf, S. (1997) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00051-2 · Cited by 415
Self-citationClarke, M. J., & Stewart, L. A. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6960.1007 · Cited by 117
Cited by
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Jüni, P. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 · Cited by 1,981
Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis
Wetterslev, J., Thorlund, K., Brok, J., & Gluud, C. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.013 · Cited by 1,881
Egger, M., Jüni, P., Bartlett, C., Holenstein, F., & Sterne, J. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7010 · Cited by 1,181
Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in random-effects model meta-analyses
Wetterslev, J., Thorlund, K., Brok, J., & Gluud, C. (2009) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-86 · Cited by 938
Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study
Jüni, P., Holenstein, F., Sterne, J., Bartlett, C., & Egger, M. (2002) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/31.1.115 · Cited by 892
Metadata
- Authors
- Pogue, J., & Yusuf, S.
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1998-01
- Volume
- 351
- Issue
- 9095
- Pages
- 47-52
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2102696978
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 5.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(97)08461-4
- The paper
- Pogue, J., & Yusuf, S. (1998). Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(97)08461-4
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.
