Peter C Gøtzsche

Bio: Peter C Gøtzsche is an academic researcher from Cochrane Collaboration. The author has contributed to research in topics: Systematic review & Placebo. The author has an hindex of 90, co-authored 413 publications receiving 147009 citations. Previous affiliations of Peter C Gøtzsche include University of Copenhagen & Copenhagen University Hospital.

Acupuncture treatment for pain: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with acupuncture, placebo acupuncture, and no acupuncture groups

Abstract: Objectives To study the analgesic effect of acupuncture and placebo acupuncture and to explore whether the type of the placebo acupuncture is associated with the estimated effect of acupuncture. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of three armed randomised clinical trials. Data sources Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Biological Abstracts, and PsycLIT. Data extraction and analysis Standardised mean differences from each trial were used to estimate the effect of acupuncture and placebo acupuncture. The different types of placebo acupuncture were ranked from 1 to 5 according to assessment of the possibility of a physiological effect, and this ranking was meta-regressed with the effect of acupuncture. Data synthesis Thirteen trials (3025 patients) involving a variety of pain conditions were eligible. The allocation of patients was adequately concealed in eight trials. The clinicians managing the acupuncture and placebo acupuncture treatments were not blinded in any of the trials. One clearly outlying trial (70 patients) was excluded. A small difference was found between acupuncture and placebo acupuncture: standardised mean difference −0.17 (95% confidence interval −0.26 to −0.08), corresponding to 4 mm (2 mm to 6 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. No statistically significant heterogeneity was present (P=0.10, I 2 =36%). A moderate difference was found between placebo acupuncture and no acupuncture: standardised mean difference −0.42 (−0.60 to −0.23). However, considerable heterogeneity (P 2 =66%) was also found, as large trials reported both small and large effects of placebo. No association was detected between the type of placebo acupuncture and the effect of acupuncture (P=0.60). Conclusions A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found, which seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias. Whether needling at acupuncture points, or at any site, reduces pain independently of the psychological impact of the treatment ritual is unclear.

Is the placebo powerless? Update of a systematic review with 52 new randomized trials comparing placebo with no treatment

Abstract: . Background. It is widely believed that placebo interventions induce powerful effects. We could not confirm this in a systematic review of 114 randomized trials that compared placebo-treated with untreated patients. Aim. To study whether a new sample of trials would reproduce our earlier findings, and to update the review. Methods. Systematic review of trials that were published since our last search (or not previously identified), and of all available trials. Results. Data was available in 42 out of 52 new trials (3212 patients). The results were similar to our previous findings. The updated review summarizes data from 156 trials (11 737 patients). We found no statistically significant pooled effect in 38 trials with binary outcomes, relative risk 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.89–1.01). The effect on continuous outcomes decreased with increasing sample size, and there was considerable variation in effect also between large trials; the effect estimates should therefore be interpreted cautiously. If this bias is disregarded, the pooled standardized mean difference in 118 trials with continuous outcomes was −0.24 (−0.31 to −0.17). For trials with patient-reported outcomes the effect was −0.30 (−0.38 to −0.21), but only −0.10 (−0.20 to 0.01) for trials with observer-reported outcomes. Of 10 clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more, placebo had a statistically significant pooled effect only on pain or phobia on continuous scales. Conclusion. We found no evidence of a generally large effect of placebo interventions. A possible small effect on patient-reported continuous outcomes, especially pain, could not be clearly distinguished from bias.

Regular self‐examination or clinical examination for early detection of breast cancer

Abstract: Background Breast self-examination and clinical breast examination have been promoted for many years as general screening methods to diagnose breast cancer at an early stage in order to decrease morbidity and mortality. The possible benefits and harms remain unclear. Objectives To determine whether screening for breast cancer by regular self-examination or clinical breast examination reduces breast cancer mortality and morbidity. Search methods For this update, the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched (October 2007). Selection criteria Randomised clinical trials, including cluster randomised trials. Data collection and analysis Decisions on which trials to include were taken independently by the authors based on the methods of a trial. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Intention-to-treat analyses were conducted using a fixed-effect model with 95% confidence intervals. Main results Two large population-based studies (388,535 women) from Russia and Shanghai that compared breast self-examination with no intervention were included. There was no statistically significant difference in breast cancer mortality between the groups (relative risk 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.24; 587 deaths in total). In Russia, more cancers were found in the breast self-examination group than in the control group (relative risk 1.24, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.41) while this was not the case in Shanghai (relative risk 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.06). Almost twice as many biopsies (3406) with benign results were performed in the screening groups compared to the control groups (1856) (relative risk 1.88, 95% CI 1.77 to 1.99). One large population-based trial of clinical breast examination combined with breast self-examination was also included. The intervention was discontinued because of poor compliance with follow up and no conclusions could be drawn. Authors' conclusions Data from two large trials do not suggest a beneficial effect of screening by breast self-examination but do suggest increased harm in terms of increased numbers of benign lesions identified and an increased number of biopsies performed. At present, screening by breast self-examination or physical examination cannot be recommended.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

Abstract: Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure