2Borm GF, Donders A. Updating meta-analyses leads to larger type I errors than publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol, 2009, 62: 825.
3Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, et al. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol, 2008, 61(8): 763-769.
4Pereira TV, Ioannidis J. Statistically significant meta-analyses of clinical trials have modest credibility and inflated effects. J Clin Epi?demiol, 2011, 64(10): 1060-1069.
5Pogue JM, Yusuf S. Cumulating evidence from randomized trials: utilizing sequential monitoring boundaries for cumulative meta?analysis. Control Clin Trials, 1997, 18(6): 580-593.
6Thorlund K, Devereaux P, Wetterslev J, et al. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta?analyses? lnt J Epidemiol, 2009, 38(1): 276-286.
7Trikalinos TA, Churchill R, Ferri M, et al. Effect sizes in cumulative meta-analyses of mental health randomized trials evolved over time. J Clin Epidemiol, 2004, 57(11): 1124-1130.
8Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, et al. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiot, 2008, 61(1): 64-75.
9Thorlund K, Imberger G, Walsh M, et al. The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation of interven?tion effects in meta-analysis- a simulation study. PLoS One, 2011, 6(10): e25491.
10Higgins JSG. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of inter?ventions, version 5.1.0. Updated March 2011. The Cochrane Col?laboration, 2011. In Edition.
