+ 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

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments



Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments



Laboratory Animals 45(4): 225-230



In 2006, Peters et al. identified 86 systematic reviews (SRs) of laboratory animal experiments (LAEs). They found 46 LAE meta-analyses (MAs), often of poor quality. Six of these 46 MAs tried to assess publication bias. Publication bias is the phenomenon of an experiment's results determining its likelihood of publication, often over-representing positive findings. As such, publication bias is the Achilles heel of any SR. Since researchers increasingly become aware of the fact that SRs directly support the 'three Rs', we expect the number of SRs of LAEs will sharply increase. Therefore, it is useful to see how publication bias is dealt with. Our objective was to identify all SRs and MAs of LAEs where the purpose was to inform human health published between July 2005 and 2010 with special attention to MAs' quality features and publication bias. We systematically searched Medline, Embase, Toxline and ScienceDirect from July 2005 to 2010, updating Peters' review. LAEs not directly informing human health or concerning fundamental biology were excluded. We found 2780 references of which 163 met the inclusion criteria: 158 SRs, of which 30 performed an MA, and five MAs without an SR. The number of SRs roughly doubled every three years since 1997. The number of MAs roughly doubled every five years since 1999. Compared with before July 2005, more MAs were preceded by SR and reported on (quality) features of included studies and heterogeneity. A statistically significant proportion of MAs considered publication bias (26/35) and tried to formally assess it (21/35).

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

Accession: 056093429

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 21737463

DOI: 10.1258/la.2011.010121


Related references

Publication bias in dermatology systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of Dermatological Science 82(2): 69-74, 2016

Publication bias in meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Statistics in Medicine 34(20): 2781-2793, 2016

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias. Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery 39(2): 91-92, 2011

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

A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. Part. B, Pesticides, Food Contaminants, and Agricultural Wastes 41(7): 1245-1258, 2006

Surveying the literature from animal experiments: avoidance of bias is objective of systematic reviews, not meta-analysis. Bmj 331(7508): 110-111, 2005

The usefulness of systematic reviews of animal experiments for the design of preclinical and clinical studies. Ilar Journal 55(3): 427-437, 2015

PRISMA declaration: a proposal to improve the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Medicina Clinica 135(11): 507-511, 2011

Methodological studies of systematic reviews: is there publication bias?. Archives of Internal Medicine 157(3): 357-358, 1997

Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Pain Physician 12(5): 819-850, 2009

Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part 7: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. Pain Physician 12(6): 929-963, 2010

Disorganized Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: Time to Systematize the Conduct and Publication of These Study Overviews?. American Journal of Medicine 129(3): 339.E11-8, 2016

Not All Systematic Reviews are Systematic: A Meta-review of the Quality of Current Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Remote Monitoring in Heart Failure. Heart Lung & Circulation 22: S84-S85, 2013

Assessment for Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in the Field of Hepatology. Gut and Liver 9(6): 701-706, 2016

Risk of bias tool in systematic reviews/meta-analyses of acupuncture in Chinese journals. Plos One 6(12): E28130-E28130, 2012