Literature DB >> 33166064

Investigating and dealing with publication bias and other reporting biases in meta-analyses of health research: A review.

Matthew J Page1, Jonathan A C Sterne2,3, Julian P T Higgins2, Matthias Egger4.   

Abstract

A P value, or the magnitude or direction of results can influence decisions about whether, when, and how research findings are disseminated. Regardless of whether an entire study or a particular study result is unavailable because investigators considered the results to be unfavorable, bias in a meta-analysis may occur when available results differ systematically from missing results. In this article, we summarize the empirical evidence for various reporting biases that lead to study results being unavailable for inclusion in systematic reviews, with a focus on health research. These biases include publication bias and selective nonreporting bias. We describe processes that systematic reviewers can use to minimize the risk of bias due to missing results in meta-analyses of health research, such as comprehensive searches and prospective approaches to meta-analysis. We also outline methods that have been designed for assessing risk of bias due to missing results in meta-analyses of health research, including using tools to assess selective nonreporting of results, ascertaining qualitative signals that suggest not all studies were identified, and generating funnel plots to identify small-study effects, one cause of which is reporting bias. HIGHLIGHTS: Bias in a meta-analysis may occur when available results differ systematically from missing results. Several different tools, plots, and statistical methods have been designed for assessing risk of bias due to missing results in meta-analyses. These include comparison of prespecified analysis plans with completed reports to detect selective nonreporting of results, consideration of qualitative signals that suggest not all studies were identified, and the use of funnel plots to identify small-study effects, for which reporting bias is one of several causes. Information from approaches such as funnel plots and selection models is more difficult to interpret than from less subjective approaches such as detection of incompletely reported results in studies for which prespecified analysis plans were available.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  meta-analysis; publication bias; reporting; systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33166064     DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1468

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Res Synth Methods        ISSN: 1759-2879            Impact factor:   5.273


  15 in total

1.  Incidence of endophthalmitis after phacoemulsification cataract surgery: a Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Si-Lu Shi; Xiao-Ning Yu; Yi-Lei Cui; Si-Fan Zheng; Xing-Chao Shentu
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 1.779

2.  Assessing treatment effects and publication bias across different specialties in medicine: a meta-epidemiological study.

Authors:  Simon Schwab; Giuachin Kreiliger; Leonhard Held
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 3.006

3.  Unconvincing evidence for peripheral biomarkers in major mental disorders.

Authors:  Klaus Munkholm
Journal:  Transl Psychiatry       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 6.222

4.  [Risk of Publication Bias in Therapeutic Interventions for COVID-19Risco de viés de publicação em intervenções terapêuticas para a COVID-19].

Authors:  Santiago Hasdeu; Fernando Tortosa
Journal:  Rev Panam Salud Publica       Date:  2021-12-16

5.  Risk factors for bile duct injury after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chang-Cheng Dong; Xue-Jun Jiang; Xue-Ying Shi; Bing Li; Liang Chen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-12-10       Impact factor: 1.817

Review 6.  Disease-Related Risk Factors for Caregiver Burden among Family Caregivers of Persons with Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Man-Man Peng; Jianli Xing; Xinfeng Tang; Qinglu Wu; Dannuo Wei; Mao-Sheng Ran
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Comparison of one-week versus three-week paclitaxel for advanced pan-carcinomas: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shitong Lin; Ting Peng; Yifan Meng; Canhui Cao; Peipei Gao; Ping Wu; Wenhua Zhi; Ye Wei; Tian Chu; Binghan Liu; Juncheng Wei; Xiaoyuan Huang; Wencheng Ding; Cai Cheng
Journal:  Aging (Albany NY)       Date:  2022-02-26       Impact factor: 5.682

8.  Biomarker Value of miR-221 and miR-222 as Potential Substrates in the Differential Diagnosis of Papillary Thyroid Cancer Based on Data Synthesis and Bioinformatics Approach.

Authors:  Shang Cai; Jiayan Ma; Yong Wang; Yuxing Cai; Liwei Xie; Xiangying Chen; Yingying Yang; Qiliang Peng
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 5.555

9.  The Efficacy and Safety of Carbon Ion Radiotherapy for Meningiomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Jie-Yun Li; Jing-Wen Li; Yuan-Chang Jin; Mei-Xuan Li; Li-Ping Guo; Zhi-Tong Bing; Qiu-Ning Zhang; Fei Bai; Xiao-Hu Wang; Xiu-Xia Li; Ke-Hu Yang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 10.  The Relationship of Tree Nuts and Peanuts with Adiposity Parameters: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Rubén Fernández-Rodríguez; Arthur E Mesas; Miriam Garrido-Miguel; Isabel A Martínez-Ortega; Estela Jiménez-López; Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 5.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.