Investigating and Dealing with Publication and Other Biases

Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context: Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 189-208

  Sterne, Jonathan A C ^a   Egger, Matthias ^a   Smith, George Davey ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Meta analysis; Methodological quality; Psychology; Sensitivity analyses; Treatment effect

Indexed keywords

EID: 84948769724     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470693926.ch11     Document Type: Chapter

References (52)

1. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991;337:867-72.
2. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 1992;263:374-8.
3. Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 1997;315:640-5.
4. Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997;350:326-9.
5. Gøtzsche PC. Reference bias in reports of drug trials. BMJ 1987;295:654-6.
6. Ravnskov U. Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: frequency of citation and outcome. BMJ 1992;305:15-19.
7. Tramèr MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ 1997;315:635-40.
8. Gøtzsche PC. Multiple publication of reports of drug trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1989;36:429-32.
9. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12.
10. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998;352:609-13.
11. Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984.
12. Galbraith RF. A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials. Stat Med 1988;7:889-94.
13. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629-34.
14. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994;50:1088-101.
15. Begg CB, Berlin JA. Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. J R Statist Soc A 1988;151:419-63.
16. Villar J, Piaggio G, Carroli G, Donner A. Factors affecting the comparability of metaanalyses and the largest trials results in perinatology. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:997-1002.
17. Davey Smith G, Egger M. Who benefits from medical interventions? Treating low risk patients can be a high risk strategy. BMJ 1994;308:72-4.
18. Glasziou PP, Irwig LM. An evidence based approach to individualising treatment. BMJ 1995;311:1356-9.
19. Davey Smith G, Song F, Sheldon TA. Cholesterol lowering and mortality: the importance of considering initial level of risk. BMJ 1993;306:1367-73.
20. Baxter GF, Sumeray MS, Walker JM. Infarct size and magnesium: insights into LIMIT-2 and ISIS-4 from experimental studies. Lancet 1996;348:1424-6.
21. ISIS-4 (Fourth International Study of Infact Survival) Collaborative Group. ISIS-4: a randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58 050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1995;345:669-85.
22. Collins R, Peto R. Magnesium in acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1997;349:282
23. Stuck AE, Siu AL, Wieland GD, Adams J, Rubenstein LZ. Comprehensive geriatric assessment: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Lancet 1993;342:1032-6.
24. Thompson SG. Controversies in meta-analysis: the case of the trials of serum cholesterol reduction. Stat Methods Med Res 1993;2:173-92.
25. Holme I. Cholesterol reduction and its impact on coronary artery disease and total mortality. Am J Cardiol 1995;76:10C-17C.
26. Midgley JP, Matthew AG, Greenwood CMT, Logan AG. Effect of reduced dietary sodium on blood pressure. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1996;275:1590-7.
27. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med 1989; 8:431-40.
28. Fleming TR, Demets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med 1996;125:605-13.
29. Rosenthal R. The "file drawer" problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 1979;86:638-41.
30. Iyengar S, Greenhouse JB. Selection problems and the file drawer problem. Stat Sci 1988;109-35.
31. Dear KBG, Begg CB. An approach to assessing publication bias prior to performing a meta-analysis. Stat Sci 1992;7:237-45.
32. Hedges LV. Modeling publication selection effects in meta-analysis. Stat Sci 1992;7:246-55.
33. Vevea JL, Hedges LV. A general linear model for estimating effect size in the presence of publication bias. Psychometrika 1995;60:419-35.
34. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al. Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials. Lancet 1997;350:834-43.
35. Givens GH, Smith DD, Tweedie RL. Publication bias in meta-analysis: a Bayesian dataaugmentation approach to account for issues exemplified in the passive smoking debate. Stat Sci 1997;12:221-50.
36. Taylor SJ, Tweedie RL. Practical estimates of the effect of publication bias in metaanalysis. Austral Epidemiol 1998;5:14-17.
37. Duval SJ, Tweedie RL. Trim and fill: a simple funnel plot based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000;56:455-63.
38. Duval SJ, Tweedie RL. A non-parametric "trim and fill" method of assessing publication bias in meta-analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 2000;95:89-98.
39. Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL, et al. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ 2000;320:1574-7.
40. Sterne JAC, Egger M. High false positive rate for trim and fill method (electronic letter). http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7249/1574
41. Begg CB. Publication bias in meta-analysis. Stat Sci 1997;12:241-4.
42. Copas J. What works?: selectivity models and meta-analysis. J R Statist Soc A 1999;162:95-109.
43. Copas JB, Shi JQ. Reanalysis of epidemiological evidence on lung cancer and passive smoking. BMJ 2000;320:417-18.
44. Sterne JAC, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:1119-29.
45. Irwig L, Macaskill P, Berry G, Glasziou P. Graphical test is itself biased. BMJ 1998;316:470-1.
46. Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med 1999;18:2693-708.
47. Morgenstern H. Uses of ecologic analysis in epidemiologic research. Am J Public Health 1982;72:1336-44.
48. Daniels MJ, Hughes MD. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat Med 1997;16:1965-82.
49. Hughes MD, Daniels MJ, Fischl MA, Kim S, Schooley RT. CD4 cell count as a surrogate endpoint in HIV clinical trials: a meta-analysis of studies of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group. AIDS 1998;12:1823-32.
50. Maddox J, Randi J, Stewart WW. "High-dilution" experiments a delusion. Nature 1988;334:287-91.
51. Gøtzsche PC. Trials of homeopathy. Lancet 1993;341:1533.
52. Vandenbroucke JP. Homoeopathy trials: going nowhere. Lancet 1997;350:824.