Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: Power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 53, Issue 11, 2000, Pages 1119-1129

  Sterne, Jonathan A C ^a   Gavaghan, David ^b   Egger, Matthias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b RADCLIFFE INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Correlation; Funnel plot; Meta analysis; Publication bias; Regression; Simulation study

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION PROCESS;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CLINICAL TRIALS; META-ANALYSIS; PUBLICATION BIAS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STATISTICS; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 0033667445     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00242-0     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Meta-analysis: Potentials and promise
2. Predictive ability of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials
3. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials
4. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
5. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus standard heparin in general and orthopaedic surgery: A meta-analysis
6. Low molecular weight heparin in prevention of perioperative thrombosis
7. Publication bias in clinical research
8. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards
9. Publication bias: Evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects
10. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German
11. Reference bias in reports of drug trials
12. Quotation bias in reviews of the diet-heart idea
13. Multiple publication of reports of drug trials
14. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: A case study
15. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials
16. Dose quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?
17. The impact of blinding on the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled multiple sclerosis clinical trial
18. Analysis as-randomized and the problem of non-adherence: An example from the veterans affairs randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery
19. Subverting randomization in controlled trials
20. Factors affecting the comparability of meta-analyses and largest trials results in perinatology
21. Who benefits from medical interventions? Treating low risk patients can be a high risk strategy
22. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
23. Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research
24. Graphical test is itself biased
25. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test - Authors reply
26. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: A comparison of methods
27. Misleading meta-analysis. Lessons from 'an effective, safe, simple' intervention that wasn't
28. sbe19.1: Tests for publication bias in meta-analysis
29. Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials. How do their results compare?
30. Meta-analysis: Bias in location and selection of studies
31. Publication bias in meta-analysis: A Bayesian data-augmentation approach to account for issues exemplified in the passive smoking debate
32. What works?: Selectivity models and meta-analysis
33. Issues in comparisons between meta-analyses and large trials
34. Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals
35. Summing up evidence: One answer is not always enough
36. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trial for meta-analysis
37. Investigating underlying risk as a source of heterogeneity in meta-analysis
38. An empirical study of the effect of the control rate as a predictor of treatment efficacy in meta-analysis of clinical trials