ArticleSystematic reviews2013
Detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses: protocol of a systematic review on methods.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 8 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Forest therapy using virtual reality in the older population: a systematic review.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Diagnostic Performance of Indocyanine Green-Guided Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2016Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Risk factors influencing the recurrence of papillary thyroid carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2014Pooled it
- Factors influencing biochemical recurrence in patients who have received salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Asian journal of andrologyPooled it
- Contextualising clinical reasoning within the clinical swallow evaluation: A scoping review and expert consultation.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2021Article
- How to Write a Systematic Review: A Narrative Review.International journal of preventive medicine · 2021Review
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Microsurgical Safety and Efficacy of Profunda Artery Perforator Flap in Breast Reconstruction.Journal of oncology · 2019Review
- Prevalence of hepatitis C virus among street children in Iran.Infectious diseases of poverty · 2018Article
- Characteristics and Methodological Quality of Meta-Analyses on Hypertension Treatments-A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2017Article
- Article
- Methodological quality of meta-analyses on treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cross-sectional study using the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2015Article
- Contradicting/negative results in clinical research: Why (do we get these)? Why not (get these published)? Where (to publish)?Perspectives in clinical research · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth professionals and policymakers aspire to make healthcare decisions based on the entire relevant research evidence. This, however, can rarely be achieved because a considerable amount of research findings are not published, especially in case of 'negative' results - a phenomenon widely recognized as publication bias. Different methods of detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses have been described in the literature, such as graphical approaches and formal statistical tests to detect publication bias, and statistical approaches to modify effect sizes to adjust a pooled estimate when the presence of publication bias is suspected. An up-to-date systematic review of the existing methods is lacking. METHODS/
designThe objectives of this systematic review are as follows:• To systematically review methodological articles which focus on non-publication of studies and to describe methods of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses.• To appraise strengths and weaknesses of methods, the resources they require, and the conditions under which the method could be used, based on findings of included studies.We will systematically search Web of Science, Medline, and the Cochrane Library for methodological articles that describe at least one method of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses. A dedicated data extraction form is developed and pilot-tested. Working in teams of two, we will independently extract relevant information from each eligible article. As this will be a qualitative systematic review, data reporting will involve a descriptive summary. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013. This systematic review together with the results of other systematic reviews of the OPEN project (To Overcome Failure to Publish Negative Findings) will serve as a basis for the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the assessment and handling of publication bias in meta-analyses.
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.