- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Poor consideration of publication bias
- The magnitude of small-study effects in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an empirical study of nearly 30 000 meta-analyses
Ref ID | 520 |
First Author | L. Lin |
Journal | BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE |
Year Of Publishing | 2020 |
URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6942244/pdf/nihms-1038392.pdf |
Keywords |
Cochrane Statistical Publication bias General medical |
Problem(s) |
Poor consideration of publication bias |
Number of systematic reviews included | 3302 |
Summary of Findings | The regression intercepts and skewness indicated substantial "small-study effects" (publication bias) in around 30% to 35% meta-analyses, and considerable small-study effects in around 20% to 40% of meta-analyses. The trim and fill methods (PTF and RTF) implied substantial and considerable small-study effects in less meta-analyses than the other measures. |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | No |