ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2019
Can authorship bias be detected in meta-analysis?
Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Moderators of Sexual Recidivism as Indicator of Treatment Effectiveness in Persons With Sexual Offense Histories: An Updated Meta-analysis.Sexual abuse : a journal of research and treatment · 2024Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of the Validity, Reliability, and Clinical Utility of Developmental Trauma Disorder (DTD) Symptom Criteria.Clinical child and family psychology review · 2022Pooled it
- Authorship network bias in meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Cameriere's open apices methodology for dental age estimation in children: a scoping review from a Latin American perspective.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeStatistical approaches have been developed to detect bias in individual trials, but guidance on how to detect systematic differences at a meta-analytical level is lacking. In this paper, we elucidate whether author bias can be detected in a cohort of randomized trials included in a meta-analysis.
methodsWe utilized mortality data from 35 trials (10,880 patients) included in our previously published meta-analysis. First, we linked each author with their trial (or trials). Then we calculated author-specific odds ratios using univariate cross table methods. Finally, we tested the effect of authorship by comparing each author's estimated odds ratio with all other pooled estimated odds ratios using meta-regression.
resultsThe median number of investigators named as authors on the primary trial reports was six (interquartile range: 5-8, range: 2-32). The results showed that the slope of author effect for mortality ranged from - 1.35 to 0.71. We identified only one author team showing a marginally significant effect (- 0.39; 95% confidence interval, - 0.78 to 0.00). This author team has a history of retractions due to data manipulations and ethical violations.
conclusionWhen combining trial-level data to produce a pooled effect estimate, investigators must consider sources of potential bias. Our results suggest that systematic errors can be detected using meta-regression, although further research is needed to examine the sensitivity of this model. Systematic reviewers will benefit from the availability of methods to guard against the dissemination of results with the potential to mislead decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30725345What 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.