SynthesisBMJ open2017
Search for unpublished data by systematic reviewers: an audit.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 5 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, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Mid-portion and Insertional Achilles Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Sports medicine - open · 2022Pooled it
- Adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with first-trimester exposure to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2019Pooled it
- Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy in older adults with chronic spinal conditions: an updated systematic review.The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association · 2026Article
- Scope and financial impact of unpublished data and unused samples among U.S. academic and government researchers.iScience · 2023Article
- Review
- Home-built environment interventions and inflammation biomarkers: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.BJGP open · 2022Article
- Impact of eating disorders on paid or unpaid work participation and performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.Journal of eating disorders · 2022Article
- Taxonomic and geographic bias in 50 years of research on the behaviour and ecology of galagids.PloS one · 2021Review
- UK ambulance service resuscitation management of pulseless electrical activity: a systematic review protocol of text and opinion.British paramedic journal · 2020Article
- Learning to Critically Appraise Rheumatic Disease Literature: Educational Opportunities During Training and into Practice.Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America · 2020Review
- Safety and efficacy of Momordica charantia Linnaeus in pre-diabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Review
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
objectivesWe audited a selection of systematic reviews published in 2013 and reported on the proportion of reviews that researched for unpublished data, included unpublished data in analysis and assessed for publication bias.
designAudit of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013 for the following journals: ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Systematic reviews published in 2013 in the selected journals were included. Methodological reviews were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently reviewed each included systematic review. The following data were extracted: whether the review searched for grey literature or unpublished data, the sources searched, whether unpublished data were included in analysis, whether publication bias was assessed and whether there was evidence of publication bias. MAIN
findings203 reviews were included for analysis. 36% (73/203) of studies did not describe any attempt to obtain unpublished studies or to search grey literature. 89% (116/130) of studies that sought unpublished data found them. 33% (68/203) of studies included an assessment of publication bias, and 40% (27/68) of these found evidence of publication bias.
conclusionA significant fraction of systematic reviews included in our study did not search for unpublished data. Publication bias may be present in almost half the published systematic reviews that assessed for it. Exclusion of unpublished data may lead to biased estimates of efficacy or safety in 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.