Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study

Ref ID 131
First Author M. J. Page
Journal BMJ OPEN
Year Of Publishing 2016
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4853995/pdf/bmjopen-2016-011863.pdf
Keywords Multiplicity
Pre-specification
Rheumatology
Problem(s) Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting
Number of systematic reviews included 31
Summary of Findings From analysis of 31 included systematic review with meta-analyses. The estimated Potential Bias Index was 0.57 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.63), suggesting that trial effect estimates that were more favourable to the intervention were included in meta-analyses slightly more often than expected under a process consistent with random selection; however, the 95% confidence interval included the null hypothesis of no selective inclusion. Any potential selective inclusion did not have an important impact on the meta-analytic effects.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? No
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes