Publication bias is underreported in systematic reviews published in high-impact-factor journals: Metaepidemiologic study

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 67, Issue 12, 2014, Pages 1320-1326

  Onishi, Akira ^a   Furukawa, Toshi A ^a  

^a KYOTO UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Funnel plot symmetry; Impact factor; Meta analysis; Publication bias; Small study effects; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DATA EXTRACTION; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EVALUATION STUDY; HUMAN; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PUBLICATION BIAS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84922481623     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Sterne J, Egger M, Smith GD. Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, editors. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London, United Kingdom: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001:189-208.
2. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, Loke YK, Ryder J, Sutton AJ, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess 2010;14:iii. ix-xi, 1-193.
3. Sena ES, van der Worp HB, Bath PM, Howells DW, Macleod MR. Publication bias in reports of animal stroke studies leads to major overstatement of efficacy. PLoS Biol 2010;8:e1000344.
4. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007;4:e78.
5. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896-900.
6. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008-12.
7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535.
8. Lee KP, Schotland M, Bacchetti P, Bero LA. Association of journal quality indicators with methodological quality of clinical research articles. JAMA 2002;287:2805-8.
9. Korevaar DA, Hooft L, ter Riet G. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Lab Anim 2011;45:225-30.
10. Yank V, Rennie D, Bero LA. Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2007;335:1202-5.
11. Sterne J, Egger M, Moher D. Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of intervention. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). New York: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. [Chapter 10]. Available at www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed May 7, 2013.
12. Web of knowledge. Available at http://www.thompson.isi.com. Accessed May 7, 2013.
13. Souza JP, Pileggi C, Cecatti JG. Assessment of funnel plot asymmetry and publication bias in reproductive health meta-analyses: an analytic survey. Reprod Health 2007;4:3.
14. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-34.
15. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:991-6.
16. Mavridis D, Salanti G. Exploring and accounting for publication bias in mental health: a brief overview of methods. Evid Based Ment Health 2014;17:11-5.
17. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.
18. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1013-20.
19. Pimouguet C, Le Goff M, Thiebaut R, Dartigues JF, Helmer C. Effectiveness of disease-management programs for improving diabetes care: a meta-analysis. CMAJ 2011;183:E115-27.
20. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011; 343:d4002.
21. Vavken P, Dorotka R. The prevalence and effect of publication bias in orthopaedic meta-analyses. J Orthop Sci 2011;16:238-44.
22. Turner EH, Knoepflmacher D, Shapley L. Publication bias in antipsychotic trials: an analysis of efficacy comparing the published literature to the US Food and Drug Administration database. PLoS Med 2012;9:e1001189.
23. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008;358:252-60.
24. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One 2008;3:e3081.