Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wrong conclusion in meta-analysis

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Gavriilidis P, Davies RJ, Wheeler J, de’ Angelis N, Di Saverio S (2019) Total extraperitoneal endoscopic hernioplasty (TEP) versus Lichtenstein hernioplasty: a systematic review by updated traditional and cumulative meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Hernia 23:1093–1103

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Neumayer L, Giobbie-Hurder A, Jonasson O, Fitzgibbons R Jr, Dunlop D, Gibbs J, Reda D, Henderson W (2004) Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh repair of inguinal hernia. N Engl J Med 350:1819–1827

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Strate T, Mann O, Izbicki JR (2004) Open mesh versus laparoscopic mesh hernia repair. N Engl J Med 351:1463–1465 (author reply 1463–1465)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. HerniaSurge Group (2018) International guidelines for groin hernia management. Hernia 22:1–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds) (2019) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cochrane Colorectal Group, Herlev, Denmark

    J. Rosenberg & K. Andresen

Authors
  1. J. Rosenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Andresen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Rosenberg.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

For this type of study ethical approval is not required.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosenberg, J., Andresen, K. Wrong conclusion in meta-analysis. Hernia 24, 1127–1129 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02149-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02149-y

Search

Navigation