ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2018
Inadequate diversity of information resources searched in US-affiliated systematic reviews and meta-analyses: 2005-2016.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Publication bias in otorhinolaryngology meta-analyses in 2021.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Literature searching methods or guidance and their application to public health topics: A narrative review.Health information and libraries journal · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSystematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) rely upon comprehensive searches into diverse resources that catalog primary studies. However, since what constitutes a comprehensive search is unclear, we examined trends in databases searched from 2005-2016, surrounding the publication of search guidelines in 2013, and associations between resources searched and evidence of publication bias in SRMAs involving human subjects. STUDY
designTo ensure comparability of included SRMAs over the 12 years in the face of a near 100-fold increase of international SRMAs (mainly genetic studies from China) during this period, we focused on USA-affiliated SRMAs, manually reviewing 100 randomly selected SRMAs from those published in each year. After excluding articles (mainly for inadequate detail or out-of-scope methods), we identified factors associated with the databases searched, used network analysis to see which resources were simultaneously searched, and used logistic regression to link information sources searched with a lower chance of finding publication bias.
resultsAmong 817 SRMA articles studied, the common resources used were Medline (95%), EMBASE (44%), and Cochrane (41%). Methods journal SRMAs were most likely to use registries and grey literature resources. We found substantial co-searching of resources with only published materials, and not complemented by searches of registries and the grey literature. The 2013 guideline did not substantially increase searching of registries and grey literature resources to retrieve primary studies for the SRMAs. When used to augment Medline, Scopus (in all SRMAs) and ClinicalTrials.gov (in SRMAs with safety outcomes) were negatively associated with publication bias.
conclusionsEven SRMAs that search multiple sources tend to search similar resources. Our study supports searching Scopus and CTG in addition to Medline to reduce the chance of publication bias.
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.