American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 186, Issue 5, Supplement , Pages S78-S80 , May 2002

Methods and interpretation in systematic reviews: Commentary on two parallel reviews of epidural analgesia during labor

References 

  1. Hawkins JL, Beaty BR, Gibbs CP. Update on US Ob anesthesia practices. [abstract] ASA Newsl. 1999;1:1060
  2. Leighton BL, Halpern SH. The effects of epidural analgesia on labor, maternal, and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:S69–S77
  3. Lieberman E, O'Donoghue C. Unintended effects of epidural analgesia during labor: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:S31–S68
  4. Stroup DF, Thacker SB, Olson CM, Glass RM. Characteristics of meta-analysis related to acceptance for publication in a medical journal. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:655–660
  5. Huston P. Cochrane Collaboration helping unravel tangled web woven by international research. Can Med Assoc J. 1996;154:1389–1392
  6. Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997;350:326–329
  7. Gregoire G, Derderian F, LeLorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias?. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:159–163
  8. Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, Juni P, Klassen T, Le Lorier J, et al.  Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implication for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet. 1996;347:363–366
  9. Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, Schulz KF, Berlin JA, Hadad AR, et al.  What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:964–972
  10. Bofill JA, Vincent RD, Ross EL, Martin RW, Norman PF, Warhan CF, et al.  Nulliparous active labor, epidural analgesia, and cesarean delivery for dystocia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177:1465–1470
  11. Howell CJ, Kidd C, Roberts W, Upton P, Lucking L, Jones PW, et al.  A randomised controlled trial of epidural compared with non-epidural analgesia in labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108:27–33
  12. Jüni P, Tallon D, Egger M. Garbage in—garbage out? Assessment of the quality of controlled trials in meta-analyses published in leading journals. Available at In: Third Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the basics. Oxford: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; 2000. May 11, 2001; www.cochrane.org Accessed
  13. Philipsen T, Jensen NH. Epidural block of parenteral pethidine as analgesic in labour: a randomized study concerning progress in labour and instrumental deliveries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Repro Biol. 1989;30:27–33
  14. Dickersin K, Min YI. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online journal of current clinical trials, Doc. No. 50 1993; Accessed May 11, 2001
  15. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867–872
  16. Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1987;8:343–353
  17. Rosenthal R. The file-drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:638–641
  18. Bhaskar R, Reitman D, Sacks HS, Smith H, Chalmers TC. Loss of patients in clinical trials that measure long-term survival following myocardial infarction. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:134–148
  19. Clark A, Carr D, Loyd G, Cook V, Spinnato J. The influence of epidural analgesia on cesarean delivery rates: a randomized, prospective clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179:1527–1533

☆ Reprint requests: Stephen B. Thacker, Director, Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, Mailstop C08, Atlanta, GA 30333.

☆☆ Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:S78-80.

PII: S0002-9378(02)70183-X

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 186, Issue 5, Supplement , Pages S78-S80 , May 2002

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution