Is data missing? An assessment of publication bias in orthodontic systematic reviews from 2010 to 2021

Ref ID 942
First Author F. Mikelis
Journal EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS
Year Of Publishing 2022
URL https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/44/4/468/6527159?login=true
Keywords Grey literature
Dentistry
Publication bias
Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s) Poor consideration of publication bias
Grey literature excluded
Number of systematic reviews included 289
Summary of Findings From 289 included systematic reviews across the orthodontic literature indexed in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from January 2010, until November 2021. Efforts to search within unpublished literature were reported in 191 out of 289 Reviews (66.1%), while efforts to communicate with primary study authors were recorded for 150 of 289 of those (51.9%). An appropriate strategy plan to address issues of publication bias, conditional on the number of studies available and the methodology plan reported, was followed in 78 of the 139 meta-analyses (56.1%). Formal publication bias assessment was actually reported in 35 of 139 meta-analyses (25.2%), while only half of those (19/35; 54.3%) followed an appropriately established methodology. Ten of the latter 19 studies detected the presence of publication bias (52.6%). Predictor variables of appropriate publication bias assessment did not reveal any significant effects.
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