Literature DB >> 16248351

Outcome selection bias in meta-analysis.

P R Williamson1, C Gamble, D G Altman, J L Hutton.   

Abstract

Publication bias has been previously identified as a threat to the validity of a meta-analysis. Recently, new evidence has documented an additional threat to validity, the selective reporting of trial outcomes within published studies. Several diseases have several possible measures of outcome. Some articles might report only a selection of those outcomes, perhaps those with statistically significant results. In this article, we review this problem while addressing the questions: what is within-study selective reporting? how common is it? why is it done? how can it mislead? how can it be detected?, and finally, what is the solution? We recommend that both publication bias and selective reporting should be routinely investigated in systematic reviews.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16248351     DOI: 10.1191/0962280205sm415oa

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  61 in total

1.  Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Lisa M McShane; Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 8.775

2.  Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Lisa M McShane; Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 3.  Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: cytokines and growth factors.

Authors:  Philip Riley; Anne-Marie Glenny; Helen V Worthington; Anne Littlewood; Luisa M Fernandez Mauleffinch; Jan E Clarkson; Martin G McCabe
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-11-28

Review 4.  The efficacy of Yunnan Baiyao on haemostasis and antiulcer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Bo Yang; Zhe-Qi Xu; Hao Zhang; Feng-Ying Xu; Xue-Yin Shi; Zui Zou; Chang-Quan Ling; Ling Tang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-03-15

Review 5.  Constitutional mechanisms of vulnerability and resilience to nicotine dependence.

Authors:  N Hiroi; D Scott
Journal:  Mol Psychiatry       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 15.992

Review 6.  [Anticholinergic treatment of overactive bladder syndrome. Is it all the same?].

Authors:  T Schneider; M C Michel
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 0.639

7.  Obstacles to researching the researchers: a case study of the ethical challenges of undertaking methodological research investigating the reporting of randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Joanne E McKenzie; G Peter Herbison; Paul Roth; Charlotte Paul
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-03-21       Impact factor: 2.279

8.  Assessing the potential for outcome reporting bias in a review: a tutorial.

Authors:  Kerry Dwan; Carrol Gamble; Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona; Shabana Mohammed; Colin Powell; Paula R Williamson
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-05-12       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 9.  Outcomes in clinical trials of inhaled corticosteroids for children with asthma are narrowly focussed on short term disease activity.

Authors:  Ian P Sinha; Paula R Williamson; Rosalind L Smyth
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-07-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Unbiased estimation of odds ratios: combining genomewide association scans with replication studies.

Authors:  Jack Bowden; Frank Dudbridge
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.135

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.