The causes, consequences and detection of publication bias in psychiatry

Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica

Volumn 102, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 241-249

  Gilbody, Simon M ^a   Song, Fujian ^a   Eastwood, Alison J ^a   Sutton, Alex ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Meta analysis; Methodology; Psychiatry; Publication bias; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

MEDICAL LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHIATRY; PUBLICATION; REGISTER; RESEARCH; REVIEW; VALIDATION PROCESS;

HUMANS; PSYCHIATRY; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 0033803379     PISSN: 0001690X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.102004241.x     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence
2. Meta-analysis of therapeutic trials: Applications in psychiatry
3. Publication bias and the integrity of psychiatry research
4. Rationale for systematic reviews
5. Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years
6. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test increase in studies of publication bias coincided with increasing use of meta-analysis
7. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards
8. A survey of attitudes and behaviors of authors who publish in psychology and education journals
9. Guidelines for publishing papers on cancer clinical trials: Responsibilities of editors and authors
10. Publication bas in clinical research
11. Minimizing the three stages of publication bias
12. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German
13. Publication bias: Evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects
14. Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research
15. Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: Frequency of citation and outcome
16. An investigation of the adequacy of MEDLINE searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the effects of mental health care
17. Publication bias: The case for an international registry of clinical trials
18. Risperidone versus 'conventional' antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia
19. Misleading meta-analysis: Lessons from 'an effective, safe, simple' intervention that wasn't
20. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
21. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
22. A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials
23. sbe16: Meta-analysis
24. The 'file drawer problem' and tolerance for null results
25. Effect size estimation, significance testing, and the file-drawer problem
26. Statistician's comments on: 'Fail safe N' is a useful mathematical measure of the stability of results
27. Publication bias and clinical trials
28. Practical estimates of the effect of publication bias in meta-analysis
29. Trim and fill: A simple funnel plot based method of adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis
30. Newer atypical antipsychotic medication versus clozapine for schizophrenia
31. Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials
32. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?
33. Relation between hostility and coronary heart disease
34. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn tests of significance - Or vice versa
35. Publication decisions revisited - The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice-versa
36. Under-reporting research is scientific misconduct
37. An amnesty for unpublished trials: Send us details on any unreported trials
38. Medical journal amnesty on trials
39. The importance of prospectively registering trials: Evidence of publication bias from a cohort study of research protocols
40. The scandal of poor medical research
41. Closing the gap between research and practice: New evidence is required