| Ref ID | 558 |
| First Author | A. A. Ayorinde |
| Journal | PLOS ONE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2020 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6992172/pdf/pone.0227580.pdf |
| Keywords |
• Policy • General medical • Publication bias |
| Problem(s) |
• Poor consideration of publication bias • Failure to address missing outcome data in analyses |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Meta-epidemiological analysis |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To assess whether publication and outcome reporting biases are mentioned and/or otherwise assessed in Health Services and Delivery Research systematic reviews, and evaluate associating factors using multivariable logistic regression models. |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| Summary of Findings | 43% (n = 85) of the reviews mentioned publication bias and 10% (n = 19) formally assessed it. Outcome reporting bias was mentioned and assessed in 17% (n = 34) of all the systematic reviews. Of all factors assessed, inclusion of meta-analysis was the factor most strongly associated with assessment of publication bias. Intervention reviews were about ten times as likely to include an assessment of outcome reporting bias compared to association reviews. Use of GRADE was also associated with assessment of outcome reporting bias. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 200 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 5921 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |