Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses

By Alex J. Sutton, S.J. Duval, R.L. Tweedie, Keith R. Abrams and David R. Jones

Abstract

Tables and figures are in a separate document available via the BMJ website at http://www.bmj.com, and available here converted to PDF.Objective: To assess the effect of publication bias on the results and conclusions of systematic reviews and\ud meta-­analyses.\ud \ud Design: Analysis of published meta­-analyses by trim and fill method.\ud \ud Studies: 48 reviews in Cochrane Database of\ud Systematic Reviews that considered a binary endpoint and contained 10 or more individual studies.\ud \ud Main outcome measures: Number of reviews with missing studies and effect on conclusions of meta-­analyses.\ud \ud Results: The trim and fill fixed effects analysis method estimated that 26 (54%) of reviews had missing studies and in 10 the number missing was significant. The\ud corresponding figures with a random effects model were 23 (48%) and eight. In four cases, statistical inferences regarding the effect of the intervention were changed after the overall estimate for publication bias was adjusted for.\ud \ud Conclusions: Publication or related biases were common within the sample of meta­analyses assessed. In most cases these biases did not affect the conclusions. Nevertheless, researchers should check\ud routinely whether conclusions of systematic reviews are robust to possible non­random selection mechanisms

Publisher: British Medical Journal
Year: 2000
OAI identifier: oai:lra.le.ac.uk:2381/152

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. A non›parametric “trim and fill” method of assessing publication bias in meta›analysis.
  2. (1996). An assessment of the use of the continuity correction for sparse data in meta›analysis. doi
  3. (1997). Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? A meta›analysis of placebo›controlled trials. doi
  4. Bias in meta›analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. doi
  5. (1998). Cochrane database of systematic reviews. In: Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Library. Issue 3. Oxford: Update Software, doi
  6. Competing interests: None declared.
  7. Directory of registries of clinical trials. doi
  8. Medical editors trial amnesty. doi
  9. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. doi
  10. (1998). Practical estimates of the effect of publication bias in meta›analysis. Australasian Epidemiologist
  11. (1999). Quality of systematic reviews published in high impact general and specialist journals.
  12. Relation between hostility and cor› onary heart disease: evidence does not support link.
  13. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. doi
  14. Trim and fill: a simple funnel plot based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta›analysis. Biometrics doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.