Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Bias in Epidemiological Studies01:29

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

1.6K
Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:  
1.6K
Bias01:22

Bias

8.0K
Bias refers to any tendency that prevents a question from being considered unprejudiced. In research, bias occurs when one outcome or answer is selected or encouraged over others in sampling or testing. Bias can occur during any research phase, including study design, data collection, analysis, and publication.
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...
8.0K
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups01:20

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

704
Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and...
704
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

11.4K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
11.4K
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches01:23

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

529
Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
529
Cochran's Q Test01:17

Cochran's Q Test

1.1K
Cochran's Q Test is a nonparametric statistical test used to determine if there are potential differences in the outcomes of three or more related groups on a binary (yes/no) or dichotomous outcome. It is essentially an extension of the McNemar Test, which is limited to two related samples - Cochran's Q test can handle three or more related samples, making it more versatile in scenarios where subjects are measured under multiple conditions. The test statistic follows a Chi-Square...
1.1K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Association of elective peripheral vascular intervention with outcomes among patients with peripheral arterial disease and intermittent claudication.

Journal of vascular surgery·2026
Same author

Health outcomes of socially vulnerable populations in different Medicare payment arrangements.

The American journal of managed care·2026
Same author

Associations of centrally acting analgesic use with total joint arthroplasty compared to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor among osteoarthritis patients in a large prospective cohort.

BMC medicine·2026
Same author

Obesity Subtypes and Longitudinal Trajectories of Function Over Seven Years of Follow-Up: Data From the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study.

Arthritis care & research·2026
Same author

Health outcomes of dually eligible beneficiaries under different Medicare payment arrangements.

The American journal of managed care·2026
Same author

Age distribution of respiratory syncytial virus disease in children younger than 5 years in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The Lancet. Child & adolescent health·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Mar 28, 2026

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
08:36

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment

Published on: April 19, 2024

1.3K

Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis.

Johanna Useem1, Alana Brennan1,2,3, Michael LaValley4

  • 1Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Plos One
|December 17, 2015
PubMed
Summary

Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses show frequent discrepancies in results and included studies, despite similar methodologies. Non-Cochrane reviews report larger effect sizes with lower precision, potentially leading to different interpretations.

More Related Videos

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
05:02

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases

Published on: October 24, 2019

34.4K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Mar 28, 2026

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
08:36

Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment

Published on: April 19, 2024

1.3K
Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases
05:02

Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases

Published on: October 24, 2019

34.4K

Area of Science:

  • Medical research methodology
  • Evidence synthesis
  • Systematic reviews

Background:

  • Cochrane Collaboration meta-analyses follow strict standards for bias reduction and transparency.
  • It remains unclear if these standards lead to different results compared to non-Cochrane meta-analyses on the same topics.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare results between Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses on the same topics.
  • To investigate differences in included studies, effect sizes, and statistical precision.
  • To explore the relationship between review differences and citation frequency.

Main Methods:

  • A matched-pair analysis comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses in cardiovascular literature.
  • Pairs were matched on intervention and outcome.
  • Contrasted frequency of discrepant results, effect size differences, statistical precision, and citation frequency.

Main Results:

  • 37.5% of matched pairs showed discrepant results, often affecting statistical significance interpretation.
  • Non-Cochrane reviews reported significantly larger effect sizes (P<0.001) and lower precision (P<0.001).
  • Reviews with larger effect sizes received more frequent secondary citations.

Conclusions:

  • Despite methodological similarities, Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses frequently report discrepant results and include different studies.
  • Systematic differences in effect size and precision exist, potentially influencing intervention interpretation.
  • Non-Cochrane reviews tend to report larger effect sizes with lower precision than Cochrane reviews.