{"id":1828,"date":"2018-10-16T18:50:58","date_gmt":"2018-10-16T18:50:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmjebmspotlight\/?p=1828"},"modified":"2019-02-19T09:48:29","modified_gmt":"2019-02-19T09:48:29","slug":"editors-review-of-bmj-ebms-analysis-of-cochranes-hpv-systematic-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmjebmspotlight\/2018\/10\/16\/editors-review-of-bmj-ebms-analysis-of-cochranes-hpv-systematic-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Editors\u2019 Review of BMJ EBM\u2019s Analysis of Cochrane\u2019s HPV Systematic Review\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>On 27 July 2018, BMJ EBM published an analysis [1]<\/a> that outlined problems with Cochrane\u2019s systematic review of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, which we shall refer to as the Cochrane HPV Review, published in May 2018; this included missing eligible trials, reporting bias, and biased trial designs and conflicts of interest. [2,3]<\/a><\/p>\n

In response to this analysis article, on 9 August the Cochrane Editor in Chief launched an urgent investigation [4]<\/a> which resulted in a report, published 3 September, which defended the Cochrane HPV Review and asked whether the conclusions of the BMJ EBM article were \u201cjustified and proportionate.\u201d [5]<\/a> Subsequently, we wrote to the authors of the BMJ EBM analysis article and received a response in which they assert that \u2018[their] analysis was appropriate and that the Cochrane editors substantially ignored several of [their] criticisms\u2019.<\/em> [6]<\/a><\/p>\n

Our review of the dispute follows.\u00a0 In it, we set out the contentious questions arising from the Cochrane Editors\u2019 response [5]<\/a> to the analysis piece and consider whether the BMJ EBM analysis [1]<\/a> requires further editorial comments or corrections. Given the potential to introduce error and the complexity of the issues at hand, we have sent a copy of this review to all parties concerned, and have additionally posted it on BMJ EBM Spotlight<\/a><\/u> to seek further public comments and consensus commenting further on the BMJ EBM HPV analysis. [1]<\/a>\u00a0 Following this consultation (tentatively over a 6-week period), we will move to issue a formal correction and\/or clarification, if necessary.<\/p>\n

Carl Heneghan, Editor in Chief BMJ EBM<\/p>\n

Igho Onakpoya, Deputy Editor BMJ EBM\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Questions: <\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Did the Cochrane HPV Review miss \u201cnearly half\u201d of the eligible trials, as reported by the BMJ EBM article?<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. Was the BMJ EBM article calculation of the number of missing participants in the 20 “missing trials\u201d correct?<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Did the Cochrane HPV Review authors mistakenly use the term placebo to describe active comparators, as reported by the BMJ EBM article?<\/a><\/li>\n
  4. Did the BMJ EBM article [1] substantially overstate its criticisms?<\/a><\/li>\n
  5. Were the serious adverse events rates accurately reported by the authors of the BMJ EBM article?<\/a><\/li>\n
  6. Were all the trials that were included in the Cochrane HPV Review funded by the HPV vaccine manufacturers, as reported by the BMJ EBM article?<\/a><\/li>\n
  7. Did the Cochrane HPV Review comply with Cochrane\u2019s COI policy?<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The articles that inform this report are:<\/strong><\/p>\n