, Volume 32, Issue 8, pp 1888-1889,
Open Access This content is freely available online to anyone, anywhere at any time.
Date: 10 Apr 2008

A Misleading Meta-analysis of Seprafilm

This is an excerpt from the content

I am writing to express my dissenting view and concerns regarding the validity of a recent meta-analysis published in the Journal by Zeng et al [1] regarding the safety and effectiveness of Seprafilm.

When performing a systematic review and meta-analysis, obviously the net has to be cast wide to ensure that relevant information is being considered. However, in this case the authors cast the net so wide that they included a different fish. G-HA/CMC is not Seprafilm [2]. It is a different product, with a different chemical composition, and different physical characteristics, and the data are not applicable to Seprafilm.

Prompted by this concern, we undertook a reanalysis excluding the data from the trial with G-HA/CMC, using the same methodology as used in the published meta-analysis. This reanalysis lead to different results. Additionally, we were unable to reproduce the numbers in two of the analyses in the Forest plot. These discrepancies did not seem to be explained by the exclusion of

Financial Disclosure: Lena Holmdahl is an employee of Genzyme Corporation.