Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25262204›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2014

A test for reporting bias in trial networks: simulation and case studies.

Ludovic Trinquart, John P A Ioannidis, Gilles Chatellier, Philippe Ravaud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ludovic TrinquartINSERM U1153, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, 1 place du Parvis Notre-Dame, 75004 Paris, France. ludovic.trinquart@htd.aphp.fr.
John P A Ioannidis
Gilles Chatellier
Philippe Ravaud

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNetworks of trials assessing several treatment options available for the same condition are increasingly considered. Randomized trial evidence may be missing because of reporting bias. We propose a test for reporting bias in trial networks.

methodsWe test whether there is an excess of trials with statistically significant results across a network of trials. The observed number of trials with nominally statistically significant p-values across the network is compared with the expected number. The performance of the test (type I error rate and power) was assessed using simulation studies under different scenarios of selective reporting bias. Examples are provided for networks of antidepressant and antipsychotic trials, where reporting biases have been previously demonstrated by comparing published to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data.

resultsIn simulations, the test maintained the type I error rate and was moderately powerful after adjustment for type I error rate, except when the between-trial variance was substantial. In all, a positive test result increased moderately or markedly the probability of reporting bias being present, while a negative test result was not very informative. In the two examples, the test gave a signal for an excess of statistically significant results in the network of published data but not in the network of FDA data.

conclusionThe test could be useful to document an excess of significant findings in trial networks, providing a signal for potential publication bias or other selective analysis and outcome reporting biases.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicAntidepressive AgentsAntipsychotic AgentsHumansPublication BiasRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSelection BiasAntidepressive AgentsAntipsychotic Agents

Identifiers

PMID25262204
PMCPMC4193287

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.