ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2026
Rating Down for Publication Bias is Rare in Cochrane Reviews: A Descriptive Study.
Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Publication bias impacts the direction and magnitude of summary effect estimates in systematic reviews and the confidence in the review findings. It remains unclear to what degree publication bias is considered in the certainty assessments in systematic reviews. Our research aims are to generate an overview of and estimate how frequent rating down occurs for the GRADE domain "publication bias" across Cochrane reviews. Study Design and Setting: This is a descriptive study. We included Cochrane reviews published between January 2021 and October 2023 that included at least one outcome for which the certainty of evidence was rated down for publication bias. We collected data from the reviews' full text, analyses, and figures. We analyzed data with descriptive statistical analysis. We used a deductive qualitative approach for analyzing qualitative data. Results: We identified 81 reviews. These reviews included between 1 and 328 individual studies. All but three reviews included randomized-controlled trials only. Data from less than 10 studies supported the summary of findings of 106 outcomes. The most commonly used methods for detecting publication bias were funnel plots. 220 outcomes were rated down by one level for publication bias. Four outcomes were rated down by two levels. The most commonly reported reasons were indications of publication bias in funnel plots. Conclusions: Rating down for publication bias was rare in Cochrane reviews despite the high prevalence of publication bias in original research. Guidance might not suffice to inform assessments of publication bias in reviews with less than 10 studies.
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.