+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

A review of publication bias in the gastroenterology literature



A review of publication bias in the gastroenterology literature



Indian Journal of Gastroenterology 37(1): 58-62



In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, publication bias is particularly problematic, given that combining only statistically significant outcomes is likely to overestimate the true effect of an intervention since non-significant findings have been omitted. We examined practices for evaluating publication bias from gastroenterology literature. We performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews published in American Journal of Gastroenterology, Gut, and Gastroenterology from 2005 to 2015. Of the 304 found, 215 studies were eligible for inclusion based on relevant study characteristics. There were 190 systematic reviews which used at least one method to evaluate publication bias and/or included ten or more primary studies. There were 115/190 (60.53%) systematic reviews which used at least one method to evaluate publication bias. Most (105/115, 91.27%) qualified reviews used at least one method to evaluate publication bias and 78/115 (67.83%) used a combination of methods. The most common methods were funnel plot (100/115, 86.96%), Egger's regression (67/115, 58.26%), and Begg's (28/115, 24.35%). Of the 115 reviews that performed evaluations, 26 (22.61%) conducted these analyses with fewer than ten primary studies, and a minority (24/115, 20.87%) reached the conclusion that publication bias was present in their work. While methods to assess publication bias were frequently noted among qualified systematic reviews, these methods are limited in value and could be improved by incorporating approaches that assess the degree of publication bias severity.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 049728230

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 29488081

DOI: 10.1007/s12664-018-0824-2


Related references

Review of publication bias in studies on publication bias: mandatory publication of data may help. Bmj 331(7517): 638-638, 2005

Review of publication bias in studies on publication bias: studies on publication bias are probably susceptible to the bias they study. Bmj 331(7517): 637-638, 2005

Publication bias in the medical literature: a review by a Canadian Research Ethics Board. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 54(5): 380-388, 2007

Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias. Bmj 331(7514): 433-434, 2005

Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. Plos One 8(7): E66844, 2014

Possible Bias in the Publication Trends of High Impact Factor Anesthesiology and Gastroenterology Journals -An Analysis of 5 Years' Data. Anesthesia, Essays and Researches 12(3): 611-617, 2018

Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. Plos One 3(8): E3081, 2008

The specter of publication bias: adjustment for publication bias in the evidence on cardiac death associated with passive smoking in nonsmoking women. International Journal of Cardiology 149(3): 388-389, 2011

Examining publication bias-a simulation-based evaluation of statistical tests on publication bias. Peerj 5: E4115, 2017

Publication bias in the anesthesiology literature. Anesthesia and Analgesia 114(5): 1042-1048, 2012

Literature is subject to publication bias. Deutsches Arzteblatt International 106(18): 320; Author Reply 321-2, 2009

Time to full publication of studies of anti-cancer medicines for breast cancer and the potential for publication bias: a short systematic review. Health Technology Assessment 12(32): Iii, Ix-X, 1-46, 2008

Publication bias in the neighbourhood effects literature. Geoforum 70: 89-92, 2016

Publication Bias and the Under-Reporting of Complications in the Literature. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery 134: 42-43, 2014

A survey identified publication bias in the secondary literature. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59(3): 241-245, 2006