The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Uses and abuses of meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Meta-analysis, the statistical combination of results from several studies to produce a single estimate of the effect of a treatment, continues to attract controversy. We illustrate the potentials and pitfalls of meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Cumulative meta-analysis demonstrates that this technique could prevent delays in the introduction of effective treatments. Meta-analyses are, however, liable to numerous biases both at the level of the individual trial ('garbage in, garbage out') and the dissemination of trial results (publication bias). We argue that meta-analysis should be performed only within the framework of systematic reviews--that is, reviews prepared using a systematic approach to minimise bias and address the combinability of studies.
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
Practical Statistics for Medical Research
Altman, D. G. (1990) · doi:10.1201/9780429258589 · Cited by 10,668
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42 · Cited by 3,309
Self-citationPublication bias in clinical research
Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., & Matthews, D. R. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y · Cited by 3,109
Comprehensive geriatric assessment: a meta-analysis of controlled trials
Stuck, A. E., Siu, A. L., Wieland, G. D., Rubenstein, L. Z., & Adams, J. (1993) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)92884-v · Cited by 1,974
Freiman, J. A., Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., & Kuebler, R. R. (1978) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197809282991304 · Cited by 1,628
beta Blockade after myocardial infarction: systematic review and meta regression analysis
Freemantle, N., Cleland, J., Young, P., Mason, J., & Harrison, J. (1999) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.318.7200.1730 · Cited by 1,509
The Existence of Publication Bias and Risk Factors for Its Occurrence
Dickersin, K. (1990) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1990.03440100097014 · Cited by 1,417
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
The Medical Review Article: State of the Science
MULROW, C. D. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485 · Cited by 856
Cited by
E. Jung, R., Zembic, A., Pjetursson, B. E., Zwahlen, M., & S. Thoma, D. (2012) · Clinical Oral Implants Research · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x · Cited by 1,019
(2015) · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60295-1 · Cited by 732
Kairy, D., Lehoux, P., Vincent, C., & Visintin, M. (2009) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638280802062553 · Cited by 587
REHKOPF, D. H., & BUKA, S. L. (2006) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s003329170500588x · Cited by 471
Smith, M. E. (2005) · Hippocampus · doi:10.1002/hipo.20102 · Cited by 395
Metadata
- Authors
- Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Sterne, J. A.
- Venue
- Clinical Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-11
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 478-484
- ISSN
- 1470-2118 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2147928436
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 15
- FWCI
- 8.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Uses and abuses of meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7861/clinmedicine.1-6-478
- The paper
- Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Sterne, J. A. (2001). Uses and abuses of meta-analysis. Clinical Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.1-6-478
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.
