Reply to Philipp Dahm, Vikram Narayan, and Jae Hung Jung's Letter to the Editor re

Richard J. Sylvester, Steven E. Canfield, Thomas B.L. Lam, et al. Conflict of Evidence: Resolving Discrepancies When Findings from Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-analyses Disagree. Eur Urol 2017;71:811-9

Thomas B L Lam, Richard J Sylvester, Steven E Canfield, Lorenzo Marconi, Steven MacLennan, Yuhong Yuan, Muhammad Imran Omar, James N'Dow

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

Abstract

We would like to thank Drs. Dahm, Narayan, and Jung for their thoughtful and well-argued comments on our paper [1]. However, it would appear that they have misinterpreted the main point of the article, which is to help guideline developers resolve conflicting findings between large, multicentre, and robust randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and those of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (MA). This issue goes beyond “conflicting results of different studies” within MAs, especially when the MA largely consists of small, underpowered, heterogeneous studies with a high risk of bias and/or poor reporting.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e93-e94
Number of pages2
JournalEuropean Urology
Volume72
Issue number4
Early online date17 Apr 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2017

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials
Guidelines

Keywords

  • Letter

Cite this

@article{2c44e62db05e4e8ba1783a0102bf46be,
title = "Reply to Philipp Dahm, Vikram Narayan, and Jae Hung Jung's Letter to the Editor re: Richard J. Sylvester, Steven E. Canfield, Thomas B.L. Lam, et al. Conflict of Evidence: Resolving Discrepancies When Findings from Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-analyses Disagree. Eur Urol 2017;71:811-9",
abstract = "We would like to thank Drs. Dahm, Narayan, and Jung for their thoughtful and well-argued comments on our paper [1]. However, it would appear that they have misinterpreted the main point of the article, which is to help guideline developers resolve conflicting findings between large, multicentre, and robust randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and those of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (MA). This issue goes beyond “conflicting results of different studies” within MAs, especially when the MA largely consists of small, underpowered, heterogeneous studies with a high risk of bias and/or poor reporting.",
keywords = "Letter",
author = "Lam, {Thomas B L} and Sylvester, {Richard J} and Canfield, {Steven E} and Lorenzo Marconi and Steven MacLennan and Yuhong Yuan and Omar, {Muhammad Imran} and James N'Dow",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.008",
language = "English",
volume = "72",
pages = "e93--e94",
journal = "European Urology",
issn = "0302-2838",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reply to Philipp Dahm, Vikram Narayan, and Jae Hung Jung's Letter to the Editor re

T2 - Richard J. Sylvester, Steven E. Canfield, Thomas B.L. Lam, et al. Conflict of Evidence: Resolving Discrepancies When Findings from Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-analyses Disagree. Eur Urol 2017;71:811-9

AU - Lam, Thomas B L

AU - Sylvester, Richard J

AU - Canfield, Steven E

AU - Marconi, Lorenzo

AU - MacLennan, Steven

AU - Yuan, Yuhong

AU - Omar, Muhammad Imran

AU - N'Dow, James

PY - 2017/10

Y1 - 2017/10

N2 - We would like to thank Drs. Dahm, Narayan, and Jung for their thoughtful and well-argued comments on our paper [1]. However, it would appear that they have misinterpreted the main point of the article, which is to help guideline developers resolve conflicting findings between large, multicentre, and robust randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and those of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (MA). This issue goes beyond “conflicting results of different studies” within MAs, especially when the MA largely consists of small, underpowered, heterogeneous studies with a high risk of bias and/or poor reporting.

AB - We would like to thank Drs. Dahm, Narayan, and Jung for their thoughtful and well-argued comments on our paper [1]. However, it would appear that they have misinterpreted the main point of the article, which is to help guideline developers resolve conflicting findings between large, multicentre, and robust randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and those of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (MA). This issue goes beyond “conflicting results of different studies” within MAs, especially when the MA largely consists of small, underpowered, heterogeneous studies with a high risk of bias and/or poor reporting.

KW - Letter

U2 - 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.008

DO - 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.008

M3 - Letter

VL - 72

SP - e93-e94

JO - European Urology

JF - European Urology

SN - 0302-2838

IS - 4

ER -