Talk:Cochrane Library

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Criticism section

I recently added this edit and it was deleted with the comment that it was too general to include:

Criticism

A 2011 study done to disclose possible conflicts of interests in underlying research studies used for medical meta-analyses reviewed 29 meta-analyses and found that conflicts of interests in the studies underlying the meta-analyses were rarely disclosed. The 29 meta-analyses included 11 from general medicine journals; 15 from specialty medicine journals, and 3 from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The 29 meta-analyses reviewed an aggregate of 509 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of these, 318 RCTs reported funding sources with 219 (69%) industry funded. 132 of the 509 RCTs reported author conflict of interest [COI] disclosures, with 91 studies (69%) disclosing industry financial ties with one or more authors. The information was, however, seldom reflected in the meta-analyses. Only two (7%) reported RCT funding sources and none reported RCT author-industry ties. The authors concluded “without acknowledgment of COI due to industry funding or author industry financial ties from RCTs included in meta-analyses, readers’ understanding and appraisal of the evidence from the meta-analysis may be compromised.” Noting that most assessment tools for meta-analysis do not include a domain for study funding source the authors state: “Currently, The Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias tool includes an optional 'other sources of bias' domain, which meta-analysts could use to include information on COIs. We recommend that The Cochrane Collaboration consider formalizing the requirement to assess potential bias from COIs.”[6]

I'd like some feedback. Do editors feel it is appropriate? Perhaps appropriate if only mentioned in the article rather than such a long edit? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it, because this concerns a much wider issue and is not really a criticism specifically of the Cochrane Library, I feel. --Crusio (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is a wider issue, however considering that the Cochrane reviews are mentioned and even singled out in the author's recommendation, it seems to me to be appropriate. I know that when we edit medical articles here in Wikipedia, they are given priority. I sure had no idea that they do not include and take into consideration this information. I do know that when I look at individual studies I always check to see who funded them and industry ties, if any, to the authors. Gandydancer (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the 2011 study named and cited? This whole criticism appears wide-reaching without any specifics other than naming a few meta-databases and implying what could be a "big pharma" conspiracy theory to cast doubt on medical research studies in general. The source of the reference is also relevant but I do not see it here to check whether it is from an article on scientific studies or a blog or tabloid piece, ot an abstract of the study itself.

If there was more information on the conflicts of interest and how it affected the Cochrane database it might be more relevant.

Czarnibog (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

suspicious of anything Cochrane

Suspicious of Cochrane - occasionally see references to either Cochrane or Wiley and when I try to follow those links, I find out that the sites require fee based subscriptions - hmm, so how does one investigate / verify / fact-check statements made in a given wiki article - if one doesn't have free access to the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.245.200 (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Databases for professionals being subscription based isn't in itself suspicious, though for writing and referencing not useful, Cochrane compile information so that their clients can have a list of many separate studies indexed. The references should have pointed to the original studies mentioned in the Cochrane meta-analysis relevant to a particular point, but having to pay for access is not much different to having references to books which may not be available to you unless you locate and purchase a copy.Czarnibog (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]