Overstating the Evidence

Senn, S. J. (2009). Overstating the Evidence: Double Counting in Meta-Analysis and Related Problems. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2009

Volume

9

ISSN

1471-2288

DOI

10.1186/1471-2288-9-10

DOI registrant

Springer Nature

Link

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-10

Cited from

accounting_auditing

Cited by

1 citation across 1 artifact.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Double Counting
  • In meta-analysis two studies reporting overlapping cohorts let the same patients contribute weight twice.

    This sourceDocuments how overlapping cohorts let the same patients contribute weight more than once in meta-analysis.

    SupportedVerified against the work's full text

    Senn documents meta-analyses that entered two overlapping reports of the same trial, so the same patients' data were counted twice and the evidence overstated.

    “Two studies by Casaburi [ 14 , 15 ] are included in the meta-analysis. However one was a preliminary report on short term results and the other is the full report at conclusion, including the short term data. Thus the short term data must have been counted twice.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:a713b5e995b3 · see in the full table