Publication bias: what is it? How do we measure it? How do we avoid it?
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
Following up cohorts of studies from inception and comparing publication levels in studies with statistically significant or "positive" results suggested greater odds of formal publication in those with such results, compared to those without.Abstract:
Publication bias occurs when results of published studies are systematically different from results of unpublished studies. The term "dissemination bias" has also been recommended to describe all forms of biases in the research-dissemination process, including outcome-reporting bias, time-lag bias, gray-literature bias, full-publication bias, language bias, citation bias, and media-attention bias. We can measure publication bias by comparing the results of published and unpublished studies addressing the same question. Following up cohorts of studies from inception and comparing publication levels in studies with statistically significant or "positive" results suggested greater odds of formal publication in those with such results, compared to those without. Within reviews, funnel plots and related statistical methods can be used to indicate presence or absence of publication bias, although these can be unreliable in many circumstances. Methods of avoiding publication bias, by identifying and including unpublished outcomes and unpublished studies, are discussed and evaluated. These include searching without limiting by outcome, searching prospective trials registers, searching informal sources, including meeting abstracts and PhD theses, searching regulatory body websites, contacting authors of included studies, and contacting pharmaceutical or medical device companies for further studies. Adding unpublished studies often alters effect sizes, but may not always eliminate publication bias. The compulsory registration of all clinical trials at inception is an important move forward, but it can be difficult for reviewers to access data from unpublished studies located this way. Publication bias may be reduced by journals by publishing high-quality studies regardless of novelty or unexciting results, and by publishing protocols or full-study data sets. No single step can be relied upon to fully overcome the complex actions involved in publication bias, and a multipronged approach is required by researchers, patients, journal editors, peer reviewers, research sponsors, research ethics committees, and regulatory and legislation authorities.read more
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Is patient empowerment the key to promote adherence? A systematic review of the relationship between self-efficacy, health locus of control and medication adherence
TL;DR: The beneficial effect of patients’ high internal and concurrent physician-attributed control beliefs suggests that a so-called “joint empowerment” approach can be suitable in order to foster medication adherence, enabling us to address the question of control as a versatile component in the doctor-patient relationship.
Journal ArticleDOI
Genome-wide association studies
Emil Uffelmann,Qin Qin Huang,Nchangwi Syntia Munung,Jantina de Vries,Yukinori Okada,Alicia R. Martin,Alicia R. Martin,Hilary C. Martin,Tuuli Lappalainen,Tuuli Lappalainen,Danielle Posthuma +10 more
TL;DR: This Primer provides an introduction to genome-wide association studies (GWAS), techniques for deriving functional inferences from the results and applications of GWAS in understanding disease risk and trait architecture, and discusses important ethical considerations when considering GWAS populations and data.
Journal ArticleDOI
The relationship between television exposure and children’s cognition and behaviour: A systematic review
TL;DR: In this paper, a systematic review of the literature studying the association between television viewing and children's executive function, academic performance, attention, language and play was conducted using five online databases.
Journal ArticleDOI
Attention Bias Modification (ABM): Review of effects of multisession ABM training on anxiety and threat-related attention in high-anxious individuals
TL;DR: Findings indicate anxiety reduction often occurs during both ABM-threat-avoidance and control-attention training, and ABM methods combining explicit goal-directed attention-search for nonthreat/positive information and effortful threat-distractor inhibition warrant further evaluation.
Journal ArticleDOI
MMP Inhibitors on Dentin Stability A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Anelise Fernandes Montagner,Rafael Sarkis-Onofre,Tatiana Pereira-Cenci,Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci +3 more
TL;DR: The use of MMP inhibitors did not affect the immediate bond strength overall, while it influenced the aged bond strength, and subgroup analyses showed that self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesives are benefited by the CHX use.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
TL;DR: Funnel plots, plots of the trials' effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials.
Journal ArticleDOI
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results
TL;DR: Quantitative procedures for computing the tolerance for filed and future null results are reported and illustrated, and the implications are discussed.
Book ChapterDOI
Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose a new algorithm called 1.8.1.1-2.0-1.8-1/2.8/1/1.
Journal ArticleDOI
Publication bias in clinical research
TL;DR: The presence of publication bias in a cohort of clinical research studies is confirmed and it is suggested that conclusions based only on a review of published data should be interpreted cautiously, especially for observational studies.
Journal ArticleDOI
Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy
TL;DR: A systematic literature search found that among 74 FDA-registered studies, 31%, accounting for 3449 study participants, were not published, and the increase in effect size ranged from 11 to 69% for individual drugs and was 32% overall.