ArticleBMC medical research methodology2012
Analysis of decisions made in meta-analyses of depression screening and the risk of confirmation bias: a case study.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2013Pooled it
- Comparison of YouthCHAT, an Electronic Composite Psychosocial Screener, With a Clinician Interview Assessment for Young People: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Trial
- Collaborative care for depression in general practice: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.Trials · 2017Trial
- Barriers and enablers to addressing smoking, nutrition, alcohol consumption, physical activity and gestational weight gain (SNAP-W) as part of antenatal care: A mixed methods systematic review.Implementation science communications · 2024Review
- Screening for depression in children and adolescents: a protocol for a systematic review update.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Identification of Anxiety and Depression Symptoms in Patients With Cancer: Comparison Between Short and Long Web-Based Questionnaires.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Can authorship bias be detected in meta-analysis?Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2019Article
- On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: six practical recommendations.BMC psychology · 2016Article
- Case finding and screening clinical utility of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9 and PHQ-2) for depression in primary care: a diagnostic meta-analysis of 40 studies.BJPsych open · 2016Review
- The art and science of study identification: a comparative analysis of two systematic reviews.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
- Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2016Review
- Visualisation of the T cell differentiation programme by Canonical Correspondence Analysis of transcriptomes.BMC genomics · 2014Article
- Article
- Screening for risky behaviour and mental health in young people: the YouthCHAT programme.Public health reviewsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDepression is common in primary care and clinicians are encouraged to screen their patients. Meta-analyses have evaluated the effectiveness of screening, but two author groups consistently reached completely opposite conclusions.
methodsWe identified five systematic reviews on depression screening conducted between 2001 and 2009, three by Gilbody and colleagues and two by the United States Preventive Task Force. The two author groups consistently reached completely opposite conclusions. We analyzed two contemporaneous systematic reviews, applying a stepwise approach to unravel their methods. Decision points were identified, and discrepancies between systematic reviews authors' justification of choices made were recorded.
resultsTwo systematic reviews each addressing three research questions included 26 randomized controlled trials with different combinations in each review. For the outcome depression screening resulting in treatment, both reviews undertook meta-analyses of imperfectly overlapping studies. Two in particular, pooled each by only one of the reviews, influenced the recommendations in opposite directions. Justification for inclusion or exclusion of studies was obtuse.
conclusionSystematic reviews may be less objective than assumed. Based on this analysis of two meta-analyses we hypothesise that strongly held prior beliefs (confirmation bias) may have influenced inclusion and exclusion criteria of studies, and their interpretation. Authors should be required to declare a priori any strongly held prior beliefs within their hypotheses, before embarking on systematic reviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.