PE
Unclaimed author profile

Peter C Gøtzsche

· Cochrane

Is this your research profile?

Create or sign in to your KnowledgeTrend account to claim this page. After the claim, this same profile URL and its linked publications will belong to your account. Claiming does not automatically grant a verified badge.

Create account and claim this profile Sign in to claim
2Linked publications
0Citations
0h-index
0i10-index

Metrics are calculated from publications currently linked to this profile.

Researcher overview

About

Peter C Gøtzsche is a registered researcher in their academic field.

Research output

Recent Publications

2 research works linked to this profile

▤
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews, Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life, Healthcare cost, quality, practices · 2011 · BMJ

The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate

▤
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews, Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy, Health Sciences Research and Education · 2009 · PLoS Medicine

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.