Reporting bias and other biases affecting systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A methodological commentary

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Volumn 6, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 603-611

  Sinha, Mukesh K ^a   Montori, Victor M ^a  

^a Mayo Clinic   (United States)

Author keywords

Bias; Database bias; Outcome reporting bias; Publication bias; Selection bias

Indexed keywords

ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT; PLACEBO; SEROTONIN UPTAKE INHIBITOR;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; DATA BASE; DEPRESSION; DRUG SAFETY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FUNDING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT SELECTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; REGISTRATION; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TELEMEDICINE; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 33751006463     PISSN: 14737167     EISSN: 17448379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/14737167.6.5.603     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann. Intern. Med. 106(3), 485-488 (1987).
2. McAlister FA, Clark HD, van Walraven C et al. The medical review article revisited: has the science improved? Ann. Intern. Med. 131(12), 947-951 (1999).
3. Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 268(2), 240-248 (1992).
4. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann. Intern. Med. 126(5), 376-380 (1997).
5. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. Br. Med. J. 309(6954), 597-599 (1994).
6. Montori VM, Helgemoe PK, Guyatt GH et al. Telecare for patients with type 1 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control: a randomized controlled trial and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 27(5), 1088-1094 (2004).
7. Hanefeld M, Cagatay M, Petrowitsch T, Neuser D, Petzinna D, Rupp M. Acarbose reduces the risk for myocardial infarction in type 2 diabetic patients: meta-analysis of seven long-term studies. Eur. Heart. J. 25(1), 10-16 (2004).
8. van de Laar FA, Lucassen PL, Akkermans RP, van de Lisdonk EH, Rutten GE, van Weel C. Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes: results from a cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Care 28(1), 154-163 (2005).
9. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 282(11), 1054-1060 (1999).
10. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. Br. Med. J. 309, (6964) 1286-1291 (1994).
11. Lemeshow AR, Blum RE, Berlin JA, Stoto MA, Colditz GA. Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 58(9), 867-873 (2005).
12. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. Br. Med. J. 331(7524), 1064-1065 (2005).
13. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 356(9237), 1228-1231 (2000).
14. Frank E. Authors' criteria for selecting journals. JAMA 272(2), 163-164 (1994).
15. Montori VM, Smieja M, Guyatt GH. Publication bias: a brief review for clinicians. Mayo Clin. Proc. 75(12), 1284-1288 (2000).
16. Egger M, Zellweger T, Antes G. Randomised trials in German-language journals. Lancet 347(9007), 1047-1048 (1996).
17. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 350(9074), 326-329 (1997).
18. Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. Br. Med. J. 316(7124), 61-66 (1998).
19. Sood A, Sood R, Bauer BA, Ebbert JO. Cochrane systematic reviews in acupuncture: methodological diversity in database searching. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 11(4), 719-722 (2005).
20. Villar J. Desenlaces clinicos de sujetos con infeccion cronica por Trypanosoma cruzi tratados o no con agentes tripanocidas. Un metaanalisis de estudios observacionales. Universidad Autonoma de Bucaramanga J. Med. 5, 166-173 (2002).
21. Villar JC, Marin-Neto JA, Ebrahim S, Yusuf S. Trypanocidal drugs for chronic asymptomatic Trypanosoma cruzi infection. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. (1), CD003463 (2002).
22. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337(8746), 867-872 (1991).
23. Misakian AL, Bero LA. Publication bias and research on passive smoking: comparison of published and unpublished studies. JAMA 280(3), 250-253 (1998).
24. Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. Br. Med. J. 315(7109), 640-645 (1997).
25. Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA 290(4), 495-450 (2003).
26. Dickersin K, Min YI. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J. Curr. Clin. Trials Doc No 50 (1993).
27. Timmer A, Hilsden RJ, Cole J, Hailey D, Sutherland LR. Publication bias in gastroenterological research - a retrospective cohort study based on abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2, 7 (2002).
28. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ, Barton C, Young G. Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA 280(3), 254-257 (1998).
29. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Ryan G et al. Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA 269(21), 2749-2753 (1993).
30. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 267(3), 374-378 (1992).
31. Shah RV, Albert TJ, Bruegel-Sanchez V, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS, Grauer JN. Industry support and correlation to study outcome for papers published in Spine. Spine 30(9), 1099-1104 (2005).
32. Bhandari M, Busse JW, Jackowski D et al. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ 170(4), 477-480 (2004).
33. Gibson L. GlaxoSmithKline to publish clinical trials after US lawsuit. Br. Med. J. 328(7455), 1513 (2004).
34. Whittington CJ, Kendall T, Fonagy P, Cottrell D, Cotgrove A, Boddington E. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet 363(9418), 1341-1345 (2004).
35. von Elm E, Poglia G, Walder B, Tramer MR. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA 291(8), 974-980 (2004).
36. Mojon-Azzi SM, Jiang X, Wagner U, Mojon DS. Redundant publications in scientific ophthalmologic journals: the tip of the iceberg? Ophthalmology 111(5), 863-866 (2004).
37. Wager E. The need for trial identifiers. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 20(2), 203-206 (2004).
38. Eysenbach G. Report of a case of cyberplagiarism - and reflections on detecting and preventing academic misconduct using the internet. J. Med. Internet. Res. 2(1), E4 (2000).
39. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291 (20), 2457-2465 (2004).
40. Chan AW, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. Br. Med. J. 330(7494), 753 (2005).
41. Williamson PR, Gamble C. Identification and impact of outcome selection bias in meta-analysis. Stat. Med. 24(10), 1547-1561 (2005).
42. Williamson PR, Gamble C, Altman DG, Hutton JL. Outcome selection bias in meta-analysis. Stat. Methods Med Res. 14(5), 515-524 (2005).
43. Irwig L, Macaskill P, Berry G, Glasziou P. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Graphical test is itself biased. Br. Med. J. 316(7129), 470 (1998).
44. Seagroatt V, Stratton I. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Test had 10% false positive rate. Br. Med. J. 316(7129), 470 (1998).
45. Stuck AE, Rubenstein LZ, Wieland D. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Asymmetry detected in funnel plot was probably due to true heterogeneity. Br. Med. J. 316(7129), 46970-46971 (1998).
46. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. Br. Med. J. 333(7568), 597-600 (2006).
47. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Br. Med. J. 315(7109), 629-634 (1997).
48. Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J. In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 58(9), 894-901 (2005).
49. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Smith GD. Systematic reviews in health care, investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. Br. Med. J. 323, 101-105 (2001).
50. Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. Br. Med. J. 320(7249), 1574-1577 (2000).
51. Copas J, Shi JQ. Meta-analysis, funnel plots and sensitivity analysis. Biostatistics 1(3), 247-362 (2000).
52. Langhorne P. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Prospectively identified trials could be used for comparison with meta-analyses. Br. Med. J. 316(7129), 471 (1998).
53. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA et al. Clinical trial registration, a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 364(9438), 911-912 (2004).
54. Gulmezoglu AM, Pang T, Horton R, Dickersin K. WHO facilitates international collaboration in setting standards for clinical trial registration. Lancet 365(9474), 1829-1831(2005).
55. Chan AW, Upshur R, Singh JA, Ghersi D, Chapuis F, Altman DG. Waiving confidentiality for the greater good. Br. Med. J. (2006) 332(7549), 1086-1089 (2004).
56. Krleza-Jeric K, Chan AW, Dickersin K, Sim I, Grimshaw J, Gluud C. Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1). Br. Med. J. 330(7497), 956-958 (2005).
57. Dormandy JA, Charbonnel B, Eckland DJ et al. Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 366(9493), 1279-1289 (2005).
58. Isley WL. Pioglitazone did not reduce a composite endpoint of macrovascular complications and increased risk for heart failure in type 2 diabetes with macrovascular disease. ACP J. Club. 144 (2), 34 (2006).