Abstract
Objective: To examine variables related with publication bias assessment in a sample of systematic reviews with meta-analysis on cardiovascular diseases.
Design: Systematic review of meta-analyses.
Setting: Journals indexed in Medline and the Cochrane Library.
Study population: 225 reviews with meta-analysis published between 1990 and 2002.
Data collection: Data from meta-analyses were gathered according to a structured protocol. The outcome was the assessment, not the existence, of publication bias by the original authors.
Results: Publication bias was assessed in 25 (11.1%) reviews, increasing with time: from 3.4% before 1998 to 19.0% in those published in 2002. A stepwise logistic regression model included several variables increasing the assessment of publication bias: number of primary studies (>7 compared with ⩽7, odds ratio (OR) = 5.40, 95% CI = 1.36 to 21.44), number of searched databases (⩾4 compared with <3, OR = 8.58, 95% CI = 1.73 to 42.62), to be a meta-analysis on observational studies (OR = 3.60, 95% CI = 1.04 to 12.49), and year of publication (2002 compared with <2000, OR = 5.73, 95% CI = 1.16 to 28.36). In reviews published in the Cochrane Library publication bias was less frequently assessed (OR = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.69).
Conclusions: The frequency of assessment of publication bias in meta-analysis is still very low, although it has improved with time. It is more frequent in meta-analyses on observational studies and it is related to other methodological characteristics of reviews.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (71.3 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Delgado-Rodriguez M., Ruiz-Canela M., De Irala-Estevez J., Llorca J., Martinez-Gonzalez A. Participation of epidemiologists and/or biostatisticians and methodological quality of published controlled clinical trials. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001 Aug;55(8):569–572. doi: 10.1136/jech.55.8.569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Detsky A. S., Naylor C. D., O'Rourke K., McGeer A. J., L'Abbé K. A. Incorporating variations in the quality of individual randomized trials into meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992 Mar;45(3):255–265. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90085-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dickersin K., Min Y. I., Meinert C. L. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA. 1992 Jan 15;267(3):374–378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dickersin K., Min Y. I. Publication bias: the problem that won't go away. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993 Dec 31;703:135–148. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26343.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1385–1389. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Easterbrook P. J., Berlin J. A., Gopalan R., Matthews D. R. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991 Apr 13;337(8746):867–872. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Egger M., Smith G. D. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ. 1998 Jan 3;316(7124):61–66. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Jennions Michael D., Møller Anders P. Publication bias in ecology and evolution: an empirical assessment using the 'trim and fill' method. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2002 May;77(2):211–222. doi: 10.1017/s1464793101005875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mickey R. M., Greenland S. The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. Am J Epidemiol. 1989 Jan;129(1):125–137. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moher D., Cook D. J., Eastwood S., Olkin I., Rennie D., Stroup D. F. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999 Nov 27;354(9193):1896–1900. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Oxman A. D., Cook D. J., Guyatt G. H. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994 Nov 2;272(17):1367–1371. doi: 10.1001/jama.272.17.1367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pham B., Platt R., McAuley L., Klassen T. P., Moher D. Is there a "best" way to detect and minimize publication bias? An empirical evaluation. Eval Health Prof. 2001 Jun;24(2):109–125. doi: 10.1177/016327870102400202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Slavin R. E. Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Jan;48(1):9–18. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)00097-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Song Fujian, Khan Khalid S., Dinnes Jacqueline, Sutton Alex J. Asymmetric funnel plots and publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy. Int J Epidemiol. 2002 Feb;31(1):88–95. doi: 10.1093/ije/31.1.88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Stroup D. F., Berlin J. A., Morton S. C., Olkin I., Williamson G. D., Rennie D., Moher D., Becker B. J., Sipe T. A., Thacker S. B. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008–2012. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sutton A. J., Duval S. J., Tweedie R. L., Abrams K. R., Jones D. R. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ. 2000 Jun 10;320(7249):1574–1577. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7249.1574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Terrin Norma, Schmid Christopher H., Lau Joseph, Olkin Ingram. Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Stat Med. 2003 Jul 15;22(13):2113–2126. doi: 10.1002/sim.1461. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]