+ 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

Publication bias in meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews



Publication bias in meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews



Statistics in Medicine 34(20): 2781-2793



We used a Bayesian hierarchical selection model to study publication bias in 1106 meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews comparing treatment with either placebo or no treatment. For meta-analyses of efficacy, we estimated the ratio of the probability of including statistically significant outcomes favoring treatment to the probability of including other outcomes. For meta-analyses of safety, we estimated the ratio of the probability of including results showing no evidence of adverse effects to the probability of including results demonstrating the presence of adverse effects. In the meta-analyses of efficacy, outcomes favoring treatment had on average a 27% (95% Credible Interval (CI): 18% to 36%) higher probability to be included than other outcomes. In the meta-analyses of safety, results showing no evidence of adverse effects were on average 78% (95% CI: 51% to 113%) more likely to be included than results demonstrating that adverse effects existed. In general, the amount of over-representation of findings favorable to treatment was larger in meta-analyses including older studies. In the largest study on publication bias in meta-analyses to date, we found evidence of publication bias in Cochrane systematic reviews. In general, publication bias is smaller in meta-analyses of more recent studies, indicating their better reliability and supporting the effectiveness of the measures used to reduce publication bias in clinical trials. Our results indicate the need to apply currently underutilized meta-analysis tools handling publication bias based on the statistical significance, especially when studies included in a meta-analysis are not recent.

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

Accession: 058661898

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25988604

DOI: 10.1002/sim.6525


Related references

Publication bias in dermatology systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Journal of Dermatological Science 82(2): 69-74, 2017

The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal. Critical Care Medicine 35(2): 589-594, 2007

Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 11: 160, 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

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

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

Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. Yearbook of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery 2007: 267-268, 2007

Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. Bmj 333(7572): 782, 2006

Cochrane reviews compared with industry-supported and other meta-analyses of the same drugs--secondary publication. Ugeskrift for Laeger 168(48): 4218-4220, 2006

Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 280(3): 278-280, 1998

Cochrane reviews v industry supported meta-analyses: ten questions to assess bias in medical research. Bmj 333(7574): 916-917, 2006

Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Research Synthesis Methods 6(2): 175-187, 2016

Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol. Systematic Reviews 7(1): 43, 2018

Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. International Journal of Epidemiology 41(3): 818-827, 2012

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