Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?

1. CochraneAL

1979 1931–1971: a critical review, with particular reference to the medical profession. Medicines for the Year 2000 London Office of Health Economics 1 11

2. LindJ

1753 A treatise of the scurvy. In three parts. Containing an inquiry into the nature, causes and cure, of that disease. Together with a critical and chronological view of what has been published on the subject. Edinburgh: Printed by Sands, Murray and Cochran for A Kincaid and A Donaldson. Accessed: 26 April 2009 http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/17th_18th_Century/lind/lind_kp.html

3. DuncanA

1773 Introduction. Medical and Philosophical Commentaries. Volume First, Part I. London: J Murray 6 7

4. CummingsMM

1981 The National Library of Medicine.

WarrenKS

Coping with the biomedical literature: A primer for the scientist and the clinician New York Praeger 161 173

5. BarronBA

BukantzSC

1967 The evaluation of new drugs: current Food and Drug Administration regulations and statistical aspects of clinical trials. Arch Intern Med 119 547 556

6. BantaD

2003 The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 63 121 132

7. StjernswärdJ

1974 Decreased survival related to irradiation postoperatively in early breast cancer. Lancet 304 1285 1286

8. ChalmersTC

1975 Effects of ascorbic acid on the common cold. An evaluation of the evidence. Amer J Med 58 532 536

9. ChalmersI

1979 Randomized controlled trials of fetal monitoring 1973–1977.

ThalhammerO

BaumgartenK

PollakA

Perinatal Medicine Stuttgart Georg Thieme 260 265

10. GoldschmidtPG

1986 Information synthesis: a practical guide. HSR: Health Services Research 21 215 236

11. MulrowCD

1987 The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 106 485 488

12. L'AbbéKA

DetskyAS

O'RourkeK

1987 Meta-analysis in clinical research. Ann Int Med 107 224 232

13. SacksHS

BerrierJ

ReitmanD

Ancona-BerkVA

ChalmersTC

1987 Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. New Engl J Med 316 450 455

14. OxmanAD

GuyattGH

1988 Guidelines for reading literature reviews. Can Med Assoc J 138 697 703

15. JenicekM

1987 Méta-analyse en médecine. Évaluation et synthèse de l'information clinique et épidémiologique. St. Hyacinthe and Paris EDISEM and Maloine Éditeurs

16. ChalmersI

1991 The work of the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit. One example of technology assessment in perinatal care. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 7 430 459

17. StarrM

ChalmersI

ClarkeM

OxmanAD

2009 The origins, evolution and future of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25 Suppl 1 182 195

18. HopewellS

LoudonK

ClarkeMJ

OxmanAD

DickersinK

2009 Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 1

19. LeeK

BacchettiP

SimI

2008 Publication of clinical trials supporting successful new drug applications: a literature analysis. PLoS Med 5 e191 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050191

20. KassEH

1981 Reviewing reviews.

WarrenKS

Coping with the biomedical literature: a primer for the scientist and the clinician New York Praeger 79 91

21. ChanAW

AltmanDG

2005 Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 365 1159 1162

22. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Accessed on 24 April 2009 at: http://www.icmje.org/clin_trial.pdf

23. ZarinDA

IdeNC

TseT

HarlanWR

WestJC

2007 Issues in the registration of clinical trials. JAMA 297 2112 2120

24. One Hundred Tenth Congress of the United States of America. Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 Accessed 17 May 2008 at: http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/&HR3580.pdf

25. DijkersMPJM

The TaskGuidelines 2009 The value of “traditional” reviews in the era of systematic reviewing. Am J Phys Med Rehab 88 423 430

26. ShojaniaKG

SampsonM

AnsariMT

CoucetteS

MoherD

2007 How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med 147 224 233

27. MallettS

ClarkeM

2002 The typical Cochrane review. How many trials? How many participants? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 18 820 823

28. MoherD

TetzlaffJ

TriccoAC

SampsonM

AltmanDG

2007 Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4 e78 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078

29. ChalmersI

GlasziouP

2009 Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 374 86 89

30. Danish Research Ethics Committee System 1997 Recommendation No. 20 Controlled clinical trials - the influence of existing and newly acquired scientific results on the research ethical evaluation. Copenhagen: Danish Research Ethics Committee System

31. KochGG

2006 No improvement – still less than half of the Cochrane reviews are up to date. XIV Cochrane Colloquium, Dublin, Ireland

32. GarrittyC

TsertsvadzeA

TriccoAC

SampsonM

MoherD

2010 Updating systematic reviews: an international survey. PLoS ONE 5 e9914 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009914