+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

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



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



Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67(12): 1320-1326



To examine how often a significant publication bias (PB) existed when the assessment of PB was not reported in systematic reviews. All systematic reviews with meta-analyses of interventions and risk/prognostic factors published in the general medical journals with the top 10 impact factors in 2011 and 2012 were included. The results regarding PB were extracted. When the assessment of PB was not reported, we examined the presence of PB using the Egger test and contour-enhanced funnel plot and the impact of unreported PB by regression-based method. Among all the identified 116 reviews, the assessment of PB was not reported in 36 reviews (31.0%), particularly in reviews without a comprehensive literature search. Of these 36 reviews, seven (19.4%) were found to have a significant PB. The original pooled results may have been overestimated by a median of 50.9% if corrected for PB. Among the 28 reviews with PB including both reviews that did or did not report the assessment of PB, seven reviews (25.0%) did not report the presence of PB. Significant PB was underreported in systematic reviews published in high-impact-factor journals (eg, 19.4% of those that did not report assessment of PB had significant PB). Readers of systematic reviews should not assume that PB does not exist when not reported whereas researchers should report the results of assessments for PB.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 055285046

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25194857

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.07.002


Related references

A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer. Bmj Open 8(3): E020869, 2018

The methodological quality of systematic reviews published in high-impact nursing journals: a review of the literature. Journal of Clinical Nursing 23(3-4): 315-332, 2014

Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 84: 54-60, 2017

Is quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in high impact radiology journals associated with citation rates?. Plos one 10(3): E0119892, 2015

Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals. Anesthesia and Analgesia 123(4): 1018-1025, 2016

Reproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews Published in High-Impact Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study. Plos one 11(9): E0163309, 2016

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

Su1035 - Possible Bias in the Publication Trends of High Impact Factor Gastroenterology and Anesthesiology Journals - An Analysis of 5 Years' Data. Gastroenterology 154(6): S-462, 2018

Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals: a meta-epidemiological study. Anaesthesia 71(8): 955-968, 2016

Publication bias for CAM trials in the highest impact factor medicine journals is partly due to geographical bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 60(11): 1123-1126, 2007

A Critical Review of Search Strategies Used in Recent Systematic Reviews Published in Selected Prosthodontic and Implant-Related Journals: Are Systematic Reviews Actually Systematic?. International Journal of Prosthodontics 30(1): 13-21, 2017

Systematic review: Outcome reporting bias is a problem in high impact factor neurology journals. Plos one 12(7): E0180986, 2017

A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Evaluation and the Health Professions 25(1): 116-129, 2002

Risk of bias assessment of randomised controlled trials in high-impact ophthalmology journals and general medical journals: a systematic review. British Journal of Ophthalmology 101(10): 1309-1314, 2017

Clinical trial registry use in anaesthesiology systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in anaesthesiology journals and the Cochrane Library. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 34(12): 797-807, 2017