Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41396031›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2025

Addressing Outcome Reporting Bias in Meta-Analysis: A Selection Model Perspective.

Alessandra Gaia Saracini, Leonhard Held

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2025. 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. Change ofFrontiers in psychology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

2 authors.

Alessandra Gaia SaraciniEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Department of Mathematics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6631-7672
Leonhard HeldEpidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute and Center for Reproducible Science and Research Synthesis, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8686-5325

Funding

European Commission Horizon-MSCA.2022-DN101120360State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation Horizon-MSCA.2022-DN Nr. 23.00303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Outcome Reporting Bias (ORB) poses significant threats to the validity of meta-analytic findings. It occurs when researchers selectively report outcomes based on the significance or direction of results, potentially leading to distorted treatment effect estimates. Despite its critical implications, ORB remains an under-recognized issue, with few comprehensive adjustment methods available. The goal of this research is to investigate ORB-adjustment techniques through a selection model lens, thereby extending some of the existing methodological approaches available in the literature. To gain a better insight into the effects of ORB in meta-analysis of clinical trials, specifically in the presence of heterogeneity, and to assess the effectiveness of ORB-adjustment techniques, we apply the methodology to real clinical data affected by ORB and conduct a simulation study focusing on treatment effect estimation with a secondary interest in heterogeneity quantification.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicModels, StatisticalBiasComputer SimulationHumansSelection BiasTreatment Outcomemeta‐analysisORB‐adjustmentoutcome reporting bias (ORB)selection functionselection model

Identifiers

PMID41396031
PMCPMC12704405

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.