Dissemination bias in systematic reviews of animal research: a systematic review

Ref ID 555
First Author K. F. Mueller
Journal PLOS ONE
Year Of Publishing 2014
URL https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116016
Keywords • Animal studies
• Pre-specification
• Low methodological quality
• Low reporting quality
• Heterogeneity
• Publication bias
Problem(s) • Low reporting or methodological quality (OTHER GUIDANCE)
• No quality assessment undertaken or reported
• Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria
• Poor consideration of publication bias
• Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity
• Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Germany
Checklists • AMSTAR 2
Aim To assess the methodological features of systematic reviews of in vivo animal studies with respect to the assessment of publication bias
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings Only 59% of included systematic reviews clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria; just over half (51%) displayed a list or flow diagram of the included studies; 24% of included reviews did not report how many studies were included. The majority of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies did not assess methodological quality of included studies (71%), or assess heterogeneity (81%), or publication bias (87%).
Number of systematic reviews included 512
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 3019
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description