Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why most published meta-analysis findings are false

  • Controversies in Colorectal Surgery
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2:e124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F (1997) Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 337:536–542

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sivakumar H, Peyton PJ (2016) Poor agreement in significant findings between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized trials in perioperative medicine. Br J Anaesth 117:431–441

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Doleman B, Sutton AJ, Sherwin M, Lund JN, Williams JP (2018) Baseline morphine consumption may explain between-study heterogeneity in meta-analyses of adjuvant analgesics and improve precision and accuracy of effect estimates. Anesth Analg 126:648–660

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hedin RJ, Umberham BA, Detweiler BN, Kollmorgen L, Vassar M (2016) Publication bias and nonreporting found in majority of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in anesthesiology journals. Anesth Analg 123:1018–1025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Imberger G, Gluud C, Boylan J, Wetterslev J (2015) Systematic reviews of anesthesiologic interventions reported as statistically significant: problems with power, precision, and type 1 error protection. Anesth Analg 121:1611–1622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Detweiler BN, Kollmorgen LE, Umberham BA, Hedin RJ, Vassar BM (2016) Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals: a meta-epidemiological study. Anaesthesia 71:955–968

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Conway A, Conway Z, Soalheira K, Sutherland J (2017) High quality of evidence is uncommon in Cochrane systematic reviews in anaesthesia, critical care and emergency medicine. Eur J Anaesth 34:808

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery and Anaesthesia, University of Nottingham, Graduate Entry Medicine, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby, UK

    B. Doleman, J. P. Williams & J. Lund

Authors
  1. B. Doleman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. P. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Lund
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Doleman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Jonathan Lund is Editor in Chief of Techniques in Coloproctology. Brett Doleman is a Junior Editor of Techniques in Coloproctology.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, informed consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Doleman, B., Williams, J.P. & Lund, J. Why most published meta-analysis findings are false. Tech Coloproctol 23, 925–928 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02020-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-019-02020-y

Search

Navigation