Literature DB >> 16984321

Using journal impact factors to correct for the publication bias of medical studies.

Rose Baker1, Dan Jackson.   

Abstract

Publication bias of the results of medical studies can invalidate evidence-based medicine. The existing methodology for modeling this essentially relies upon the symmetry of the funnel plot. We present a new method of modeling publication bias that uses this information plus the impact factors of the publishing journals. A simple model of the publication process enables the estimation of bias-corrected intervention effects. The procedure is illustrated using a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of single-dose oral aspirin for acute pain, and results are also obtained for five other meta-analyses. The method enables the fitting of a wide range of models and is considered more flexible than other ways of compensating for publication bias. The model also provides the basis of a statistical test for the existence of publication bias. Use of the new methodology to supplement existing methods is recommended, in the context of a sensitivity analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16984321     DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00513.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  10 in total

1.  A new approach to outliers in meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rose Baker; Dan Jackson
Journal:  Health Care Manag Sci       Date:  2008-06

2.  Maximum likelihood estimation and EM algorithm of Copas-like selection model for publication bias correction.

Authors:  Jing Ning; Yong Chen; Jin Piao
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2017-07-01       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  Combining information.

Authors:  Walter W Piegorsch; A John Bailer
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat       Date:  2009-11

4.  A fully Bayesian application of the Copas selection model for publication bias extended to network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dimitris Mavridis; Alex Sutton; Andrea Cipriani; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  The Galaxy Plot: A New Visualization Tool for Bivariate Meta-Analysis Studies.

Authors:  Chuan Hong; Rui Duan; Lingzhen Zeng; Rebecca A Hubbard; Thomas Lumley; Richard D Riley; Haitao Chu; Stephen E Kimmel; Yong Chen
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  A critical appraisal of epidemiological studies comes from basic knowledge: a reader's guide to assess potential for biases.

Authors:  Stefania Boccia; Giuseppe La Torre; Roberto Persiani; Domenico D'Ugo; Cornelia M van Duijn; Gualtiero Ricciardi
Journal:  World J Emerg Surg       Date:  2007-03-15       Impact factor: 5.469

7.  Journal impact factor, trial effect size, and methodological quality appear scantly related: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael Saginur; Dean Fergusson; Tinghua Zhang; Karen Yeates; Tim Ramsay; George Wells; David Moher
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2020-03-09

8.  Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study.

Authors:  Santiago G Moreno; Alex J Sutton; A E Ades; Tom D Stanley; Keith R Abrams; Jaime L Peters; Nicola J Cooper
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2009-01-12       Impact factor: 4.615

9.  A re-evaluation of the 'quantile approximation method' for random effects meta-analysis.

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Jack Bowden
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-01-30       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Improving the error rates of the Begg and Mazumdar test for publication bias in fixed effects meta-analysis.

Authors:  Miriam Gjerdevik; Ivar Heuch
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 4.615

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.