Literature DB >> 19000980

Selective reporting of adjusted estimates in observational epidemiology studies: reasons and implications for meta-analyses.

Jaime Peters1, Kerrie Mengersen.   

Abstract

For meta-analyses of observational epidemiology studies, unadjusted and adjusted study estimates are often extracted. However, there is evidence of selective reporting of adjusted study estimates. We investigate adjustment reporting bias, examining the reasons why some studies do not contribute an adjusted estimate to a meta-analysis. Ten published meta-analyses were re-analysed to assess evidence of adjustment reporting bias and over 100 primary studies were read to investigate why they did not contribute an adjusted estimate to a meta-analysis. Selective reporting of adjusted estimates may lead to a bias in some meta-analyses when adjusted study estimates are not reported because univariate analyses indicated a non-significant effect. We recommend that unadjusted and adjusted study estimates be extracted for a meta-analysis. If adjusted estimates cannot be obtained, the reasons for this should be investigated and sensitivity analyses could be used to assess the impact of this on the meta-analysis.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19000980     DOI: 10.1177/0163278708324438

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eval Health Prof        ISSN: 0163-2787            Impact factor:   2.651


  23 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.  Intention to become pregnant and low birth weight and preterm birth: a systematic review.

Authors:  Prakesh S Shah; Taiba Balkhair; Arne Ohlsson; Joseph Beyene; Fran Scott; Corine Frick
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2011-02

Review 4.  Risk of hip fracture with hip or knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Anna M Chudyk; Maureen C Ashe; Erin Gorman; Hashel O Al Tunaiji; Kay M Crossley
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 2.980

5.  Polymorphism of 8q24 rsl3281615 and breast cancer risk : a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yan-Lei Pei; He-Long Zhang; Hong-Guang Han
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2012-11-07

6.  Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Fujian Song; Andrew Vickers; Tom Jefferson; Kay Dickersin; Peter C Gøtzsche; Harlan M Krumholz; Davina Ghersi; H Bart van der Worp
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Quantitative assessment of the associations between MTHFR C677T and A1298C polymorphisms and risk of fractures: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rui Bai; Wanlin Liu; Aiqing Zhao; Zhenqun Zhao; Dianming Jiang
Journal:  Mol Biol Rep       Date:  2012-12-11       Impact factor: 2.316

Review 8.  Reporting on covariate adjustment in randomised controlled trials before and after revision of the 2001 CONSORT statement: a literature review.

Authors:  Ly-Mee Yu; An-Wen Chan; Sally Hopewell; Jonathan J Deeks; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  MMP1-1607 1G/2G polymorphism and lung cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xu-Yang Xiao; Xiao-Dong Wang; Dong-Yu Zang
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2012-09-11

10.  Field-wide meta-analyses of observational associations can map selective availability of risk factors and the impact of model specifications.

Authors:  Stylianos Serghiou; Chirag J Patel; Yan Yu Tan; Peter Koay; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-09-28       Impact factor: 6.437

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.