Publication and related biases in health services research: a systematic review of empirical evidence

Background: Publication and related biases (including publication bias, time-lag bias, outcome reporting bias and p-hacking) have been well documented in clinical research, but relatively little is known about their presence and extent in health services research (HSR). This paper aims to systematically review evidence concerning publication and related bias in quantitative HSR. Methods: Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Cochrane EPOC Review Group and several websites were searched to July 2018. Information was obtained from: (1) Methodological studies that set out to investigate publication and related biases in HSR; (2) Systematic reviews of HSR topics which examined such biases as part of the review process. Relevant information was extracted from included studies by one reviewer and checked by another. Studies were appraised according to commonly accepted scientific principles due to lack of suitable checklists. Data were synthesised narratively. Results: After screening 6155 citations, four methodological studies investigating publication bias in HSR and 184 systematic reviews of HSR topics (including three comparing published with unpublished evidence) were examined. Evidence suggestive of publication bias was reported in some of the methodological studies, but evidence presented was very weak, limited in both quality and scope. Reliable data on outcome reporting bias and p-hacking were scant. HSR systematic reviews in which published literature was compared with unpublished evidence found significant differences in the estimated intervention effects or association in some but not all cases. Conclusions: Methodological research on publication and related biases in HSR is sparse. Evidence from available literature suggests that such biases may exist in HSR but their scale and impact are difficult to estimate for various reasons discussed in this paper. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016052333

Addition of Bevacizumab to Chemotherapy in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION: Recently, studies have demonstrated that the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy could be associated with better outcomes in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the benefit seems to be dependent on the drugs used in the chemotherapy regimens. This systematic review evaluated the strength of data on efficacy of the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with advanced NSCLC. The outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), toxicities and treatment related mortality. Hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) were used for the meta-analysis and were expressed with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We included results reported from five RCTs, with a total of 2,252 patients included in the primary analysis, all of them using platinum-based chemotherapy regimens. Compared to chemotherapy alone, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy resulted in a significant longer OS (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99; p = 0.04), longer PFS (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82; p<0.00001) and higher response rates (OR 2.34; 95% CI 1.89 to 2.89; p<0.00001). We found no heterogeneity between trials, in all comparisons. There was a slight increase in toxicities in bevacizumab group, as well as an increased rate of treatment-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC prolongs OS, PFS and RR. Considering the toxicities added, and the small absolute benefits found, bevacizumab plus platinum-based chemotherapy can be considered an option in selected patients with advanced NSCLC. However, risks and benefits should be discussed with patients before decision making

Performance of CMS muon reconstruction in pp collision events at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV

The performance of muon reconstruction, identification, and triggering in CMS has been studied using 40 inverse picobarns of data collected in pp collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV at the LHC in 2010. A few benchmark sets of selection criteria covering a wide range of physics analysis needs have been examined. For all considered selections, the efficiency to reconstruct and identify a muon with a transverse momentum pT larger than a few GeV is above 95% over the whole region of pseudorapidity covered by the CMS muon system, abs(eta) < 2.4, while the probability to misidentify a hadron as a muon is well below 1%. The efficiency to trigger on single muons with pT above a few GeV is higher than 90% over the full eta range, and typically substantially better. The overall momentum scale is measured to a precision of 0.2% with muons from Z decays. The transverse momentum resolution varies from 1% to 6% depending on pseudorapidity for muons with pT below 100 GeV and, using cosmic rays, it is shown to be better than 10% in the central region up to pT = 1 TeV. Observed distributions of all quantities are well reproduced by the Monte Carlo simulation.Comment: Replaced with published version. Added journal reference and DO

Precise measurement of the W-boson mass with the CDF II detector

We have measured the W-boson mass MW using data corresponding to 2.2/fb of integrated luminosity collected in proton-antiproton collisions at 1.96 TeV with the CDF II detector at the Fermilab Tevatron collider. Samples consisting of 470126 W->enu candidates and 624708 W->munu candidates yield the measurement MW = 80387 +- 12 (stat) +- 15 (syst) = 80387 +- 19 MeV. This is the most precise measurement of the W-boson mass to date and significantly exceeds the precision of all previous measurements combined