Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28320937›Full record

SynthesisProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2017

Meta-assessment of bias in science.

Daniele Fanelli, Rodrigo Costas, John P A Ioannidis

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 110 papers, 27 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
110citing papers in PubMed, 27 pooled it
–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

110 citing papers in PubMed, 27 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pregabalin for neuropathic pain in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Guideline
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

50 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Daniele FanelliMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94304; email@danielefanelli.com.
Rodrigo CostasCentre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, 2333 AL Leiden, The Netherlands.
John P A IoannidisMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94304.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous biases are believed to affect the scientific literature, but their actual prevalence across disciplines is unknown. To gain a comprehensive picture of the potential imprint of bias in science, we probed for the most commonly postulated bias-related patterns and risk factors, in a large random sample of meta-analyses taken from all disciplines. The magnitude of these biases varied widely across fields and was overall relatively small. However, we consistently observed a significant risk of small, early, and highly cited studies to overestimate effects and of studies not published in peer-reviewed journals to underestimate them. We also found at least partial confirmation of previous evidence suggesting that US studies and early studies might report more extreme effects, although these effects were smaller and more heterogeneously distributed across meta-analyses and disciplines. Authors publishing at high rates and receiving many citations were, overall, not at greater risk of bias. However, effect sizes were likely to be overestimated by early-career researchers, those working in small or long-distance collaborations, and those responsible for scientific misconduct, supporting hypotheses that connect bias to situational factors, lack of mutual control, and individual integrity. Some of these patterns and risk factors might have modestly increased in intensity over time, particularly in the social sciences. Our findings suggest that, besides one being routinely cautious that published small, highly-cited, and earlier studies may yield inflated results, the feasibility and costs of interventions to attenuate biases in the literature might need to be discussed on a discipline-specific and topic-specific basis.

Indexed as

Research DesignSelection BiasFemaleHumansMalePublishingResearch PersonnelScientific Misconductbiasintegritymeta-analysismeta-researchmisconduct

Identifiers

PMID28320937
PMCPMC5389310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.