+ Site Statistics
+ 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

Publication bias in dermatology systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Publication bias in dermatology systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Journal of Dermatological Science 82(2): 69-74

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology provide high-level evidence for clinicians and policy makers that influence clinical decision making and treatment guidelines. One methodological problem with systematic reviews is the under representation of unpublished studies. This problem is due in part to publication bias. Omission of statistically non-significant data from meta-analyses may result in overestimation of treatment effect sizes which may lead to clinical consequences. Our goal was to assess whether systematic reviewers in dermatology evaluate and report publication bias. Further, we wanted to conduct our own evaluation of publication bias on meta-analyses that failed to do so. Our study considered systematic reviews and meta-analyses from ten dermatology journals from 2006 to 2016. A PubMed search was conducted, and all full-text articles that met our inclusion criteria were retrieved and coded by the primary author. 293 articles were included in our analysis. Additionally, we formally evaluated publication bias in meta-analyses that failed to do so using trim and fill and cumulative meta-analysis by precision methods. Publication bias was mentioned in 107 articles (36.5%) and was formally evaluated in 64 articles (21.8%). Visual inspection of a funnel plot was the most common method of evaluating publication bias. Publication bias was present in 45 articles (15.3%), not present in 57 articles (19.5%) and not determined in 191 articles (65.2%). Using the trim and fill method, 7 meta-analyses (33.33%) showed evidence of publication bias. Although the trim and fill method only found evidence of publication bias in 7 meta-analyses, the cumulative meta-analysis by precision method found evidence of publication bias in 15 meta-analyses (71.4%). Many of the reviews in our study did not mention or evaluate publication bias. Further, of the 42 articles that stated following PRISMA reporting guidelines, 19 (45.2%) evaluated for publication bias. In comparison to other studies, we found that systematic reviews in dermatology were less likely to evaluate for publication bias. Evaluating and reporting the likelihood of publication bias should be standard practice in systematic reviews when appropriate.

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

Accession: 058661897

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26925817

DOI: 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2016.02.005

Related references

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

Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals. Anesthesia and Analgesia 123(4): 1018-1025, 2017

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of preclinical studies: publication bias in laboratory animal experiments. Laboratory Animals 45(4): 225-230, 2012

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

When poorly conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses can mislead: a critical appraisal and update of systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the effects of probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation in children. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2019, 2019

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

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, 2012

Detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses: protocol of a systematic review on methods. Systematic Reviews 2: 60, 2013

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses). Rofo 183(12): 1106-1110, 2012

On the criteria used for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses addressing adverse effects. European Journal of Epidemiology 30(3): 249-250, 2015

Publication of methodological guidelines: The development of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials by the department of science and technology of the Brazilian ministry of health (DECIT/MOH). Value in Health 17(3): A206-A207, 2014

Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: a systematic examination. Bmc Medicine 13: 82, 2015