Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
A J Sutton a Department of Epidemiology and Public Health,
University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 6TP, b Division of
Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, USA, c Department of
Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota
Correspondence to: A J
Sutton ajs22{at}le.ac.uk
Objective:
To assess the effect of publication bias on the results and conclusions of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Design:
Analysis of published meta-analyses by trim and fill method.
Studies:
48 reviews in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews that considered a binary endpoint and contained 10 or more
individual studies.
Main outcome measures:
Number of reviews with missing
studies and effect on conclusions of meta-analyses.
Results:
The trim and fill fixed effects analysis
method estimated that 26 (54%) of reviews had missing studies and in 10 the number missing was significant. The corresponding figures with a
random effects model were 23 (48%) and eight. In four cases, statistical inferences regarding the effect of the intervention were changed after the overall estimate for publication bias was adjusted for.
Conclusions:
Publication or related biases were common within the sample of meta-analyses assessed. In most cases these biases
did not affect the conclusions. Nevertheless, researchers should check
routinely whether conclusions of systematic reviews are robust to
possible non-random selection mechanisms.
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+