RCTs,
cheap jordans for sale
, publication of their findings usually report good news. Even when an objective analysis of the data may turn up problems or potential health risks. Sometimes data are dropped that might raise red flags. Or the authors might organize their data in ways that minimize the statistical weight of potentially adverse findings.

And that’s why research journals increasingly have been asking — if not requiring — that authors identify all sources of funding for drug trials,
cheap wholesale jordans
, who contributed to interpretations of trial results and who paid for each author's labors.

But there’s a loophole when it comes to meta-analyses,
cheap retro jordans
, Roseman’s group observes. It notes that a common policy by journals is to recommend that? authors of meta-analyses report their funding source — “but does not address the reporting of conflicts of interest from included RCTs.” Clearly,
http://cheapjordansstock.com
, Roseman’s group argues,
cheap jordans online
, that should change.

For its new analysis,
cheap air jordans
, Roseman and her coworkers scoured the scientific literature for meta-analyses of drug trials published between January and October 2009 in five top-tier general-medicine journals, in the top-cited journals of five specialty fields (oncology,
cheap jordans
, cardiology,
cheap real jordans
, respiratory medicine, endocrinology and gastroenterology) or in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The new study pored over the three most recently published qualifying papers from each source — some 29 that together included information from 509 RCTs.

Roughly two-thirds of the studies that reported the RCTs’ initial findings included data on their funding sources. Of these,

http://www.nwp-clan-la...read.php?threadid=2413443

http://www.frbiz.com/p...7/ipad_cover_cgi_005.html

http://www.knorretty.c...thread.php?thread_id=3925