Send to

Choose Destination
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Feb;62(2):128-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.08.003. Epub 2008 Nov 14.

Poor reporting of search strategy and conflict of interest in over 250 narrative and systematic reviews of two biologic agents in arthritis: a systematic review.

Author information

The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA.



To evaluate the quality of reviews about etanercept (ETN) and infliximab (IFX), two biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).


A comprehensive, systematic review, including searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other electronic databases and hand-searches for published and unpublished literature. Two raters independently examined each article and identified systematic reviews as those including either a description of: (1) sources for identification and data retrieval; or (2) search strategy. They applied the quality of reporting of meta-analyses (QUOROM) instrument to systematic reviews.


Of 3,620 total citations, 281 were identified as reviews. Of these, 26 (9%) qualified as systematic rather than narrative. Overall, few reviews described selection of sources, critical appraisal, or quantitative summary or synthesis. Systematic reviews most often failed to explain validity assessment. Several articles did not disclose authors' participation in industry-funded clinical trials. Most reviews published in high impact factor and rheumatology journals did not meet many quality standards. Significant associations existed between review type (narrative vs. systematic) and reported funding (P=0.05), conflicts of interest (P=0.005), and country of publication (P<0.0001).


More than 90% of the published reviews were narrative and did not report methods and conflicts of interest in sufficient detail, raising concerns about selection and reporting bias.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center