- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Poor consideration of publication bias
- Assessment of publication bias and outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery research: A meta-epidemiological study
| 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 |
Publication bias General medical Policy |
| Problem(s) |
Poor consideration of publication bias Failure to address missing outcome data in analyses |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 200 |
| 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. |
| 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 |