

![]() |
Ability of a meta-analysis to prevent redundant research: systematic review of studies on pain from propofol injection |
|
Authors | ||
Published in | BMJ. British medical journal. 2014, vol. 348, g5219 | |
Abstract | To examine whether, according to the conclusions of a 2000 systematic review with meta-analysis on interventions to prevent pain from propofol injection that provided a research agenda to guide further research on the topic, subsequently published trials were more often optimally blinded, reported on children, and used the most efficacious intervention as comparator; and to check whether the number of new trials published each year had decreased and whether the designs of trials that cited the review differed from those that did not. | |
Keywords | Humans — Injections, Intravenous/adverse effects — Meta-Analysis as Topic — Pain/etiology/prevention & control — Propofol/administration & dosage — Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards — Research Design/standards — Review Literature as Topic | |
Identifiers | DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g5219 PMID: 25161280 | |
Full text | ||
Structures | ||
Research group | La Médecine Périopératoire et l'anesthésie (70) | |
Citation (ISO format) | HABRE, Céline et al. Ability of a meta-analysis to prevent redundant research: systematic review of studies on pain from propofol injection. In: BMJ. British medical journal, 2014, vol. 348, p. g5219. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g5219 https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:43182 |