Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSeidler, Anna Lene
dc.contributor.authorHunter, Kylie E
dc.contributor.authorCheyne, Saskia
dc.contributor.authorBerlin, Jesse A
dc.contributor.authorGhersi, Davina
dc.contributor.authorAskie, Lisa M
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-18T04:06:12Z
dc.date.available2021-03-18T04:06:12Z
dc.date.issued2020en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/24677
dc.description.abstractCochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses are regarded as the ‘gold standard’ for high-quality information and are widely used to inform healthcare policy and practice. The nature of how conventional systematic reviews are conceived and conducted after at least some of the included studies are completed means that reviewers can inadvertently introduce bias when faced with heterogeneous studies that cannot be easily synthesized. Prospective meta-analysis (PMA) is now gaining traction as a means of reducing research waste and producing meaningful and less biased evidence syntheses. PMA has been lauded as a ‘next- generation’ method, and Ioannidis has argued that “all primary original research may be designed, executed, and interpreted as prospective meta-analysis”.en_AU
dc.publisherWileyen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofCochrane Database of Systematic Reviewsen_AU
dc.rightsCopyright All Rights Reserveden_AU
dc.titleProspective Meta-Analyses and Cochrane's role in embracing next generation methodologies.en_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/14651858.ED000145
dc.rights.otherhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditionsen_AU
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::Faculty of Medicine and Health::NHMRC Clinical Trials Centreen_AU
usyd.citation.issue3en_AU
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.