68.9 percent identified at least some drug-company funding. Only one-quarter of the RCT studies disclosed author funding sources, but among those that did,
cheap retro jordans
, 68.9 percent reported at least one author had financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

Just two meta-analyses, however,
cheap jordans for sale
, addressed sources of financing for any of the RCTs. In one of these exceptions,
cheap jordans
, the financial information was included — but only in a footnote to a table. In the other meta-analysis,
cheap jordan shoes
, the information was included at the back of the paper in a “characteristics of studies” table that followed the primary text and references.

These do not offer suitable defenses against charges the meta-analyses buried potential conflicts of interests, the JAMA paper’s authors contend, because neither footnotes nor some back-of-the-paper table on study features “are typically reviewed by the average reader.”

Moreover,
cheap air jordans
, none of the meta-analyses — including these two — relayed any information on ties between industry and authors of the original RCT.

Failure to report industry links to pharmaceutical trials “may lead readers to trust the conclusions of a meta-analysis when they potentially should not,
cheap jordans online
,” authors of the new JAMA paper argue. At a minimum, they explain,
cheap jordans free shipping
, such omissions leave out clues to influence by one or more parties with a vested financial interest in an RCT’s outcome.

There are, of course,
cheap wholesale jordans
, plenty of other problems associated with meta-analyses, not the least being that few compare well-matched populations. Some may compare huge studies in men with those conducted

http://www.bcc.aaf.pl/...hread.php?thread_id=15561

http://www.wrc2league....iewthread.php?thread_id=0

http://www.rascals-gam...orum_topic&topic=5919