A review of publication bias in the gastroenterology literature

Trace Heavener, Matt Vassar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, publication bias is particularly problematic, given that combining only statistically significant outcomes is likely to overestimate the true effect of an intervention since non-significant findings have been omitted. We examined practices for evaluating publication bias from gastroenterology literature. We performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews published in American Journal of Gastroenterology, Gut, and Gastroenterology from 2005 to 2015. Of the 304 found, 215 studies were eligible for inclusion based on relevant study characteristics. There were 190 systematic reviews which used at least one method to evaluate publication bias and/or included ten or more primary studies. There were 115/190 (60.53%) systematic reviews which used at least one method to evaluate publication bias. Most (105/115, 91.27%) qualified reviews used at least one method to evaluate publication bias and 78/115 (67.83%) used a combination of methods. The most common methods were funnel plot (100/115, 86.96%), Egger’s regression (67/115, 58.26%), and Begg’s (28/115, 24.35%). Of the 115 reviews that performed evaluations, 26 (22.61%) conducted these analyses with fewer than ten primary studies, and a minority (24/115, 20.87%) reached the conclusion that publication bias was present in their work. While methods to assess publication bias were frequently noted among qualified systematic reviews, these methods are limited in value and could be improved by incorporating approaches that assess the degree of publication bias severity.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)58-62
Number of pages5
JournalIndian Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume37
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2018

Fingerprint

Publication Bias
Gastroenterology
PubMed
Meta-Analysis

Keywords

  • Gastroenterology
  • Meta-analysis
  • Publication bias
  • Systematic review

Cite this

@article{b356d4e85fbf4b4c9b64757a7eda968b,
title = "A review of publication bias in the gastroenterology literature",
abstract = "In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, publication bias is particularly problematic, given that combining only statistically significant outcomes is likely to overestimate the true effect of an intervention since non-significant findings have been omitted. We examined practices for evaluating publication bias from gastroenterology literature. We performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews published in American Journal of Gastroenterology, Gut, and Gastroenterology from 2005 to 2015. Of the 304 found, 215 studies were eligible for inclusion based on relevant study characteristics. There were 190 systematic reviews which used at least one method to evaluate publication bias and/or included ten or more primary studies. There were 115/190 (60.53{\%}) systematic reviews which used at least one method to evaluate publication bias. Most (105/115, 91.27{\%}) qualified reviews used at least one method to evaluate publication bias and 78/115 (67.83{\%}) used a combination of methods. The most common methods were funnel plot (100/115, 86.96{\%}), Egger’s regression (67/115, 58.26{\%}), and Begg’s (28/115, 24.35{\%}). Of the 115 reviews that performed evaluations, 26 (22.61{\%}) conducted these analyses with fewer than ten primary studies, and a minority (24/115, 20.87{\%}) reached the conclusion that publication bias was present in their work. While methods to assess publication bias were frequently noted among qualified systematic reviews, these methods are limited in value and could be improved by incorporating approaches that assess the degree of publication bias severity.",
keywords = "Gastroenterology, Meta-analysis, Publication bias, Systematic review",
author = "Trace Heavener and Matt Vassar",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s12664-018-0824-2",
language = "English",
volume = "37",
pages = "58--62",
journal = "Indian Journal of Gastroenterology",
issn = "0254-8860",
publisher = "Indian Society of Gastroenterology",
number = "1",

}

A review of publication bias in the gastroenterology literature. / Heavener, Trace; Vassar, Matt.

In: Indian Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 37, No. 1, 01.01.2018, p. 58-62.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A review of publication bias in the gastroenterology literature

AU - Heavener, Trace

AU - Vassar, Matt

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, publication bias is particularly problematic, given that combining only statistically significant outcomes is likely to overestimate the true effect of an intervention since non-significant findings have been omitted. We examined practices for evaluating publication bias from gastroenterology literature. We performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews published in American Journal of Gastroenterology, Gut, and Gastroenterology from 2005 to 2015. Of the 304 found, 215 studies were eligible for inclusion based on relevant study characteristics. There were 190 systematic reviews which used at least one method to evaluate publication bias and/or included ten or more primary studies. There were 115/190 (60.53%) systematic reviews which used at least one method to evaluate publication bias. Most (105/115, 91.27%) qualified reviews used at least one method to evaluate publication bias and 78/115 (67.83%) used a combination of methods. The most common methods were funnel plot (100/115, 86.96%), Egger’s regression (67/115, 58.26%), and Begg’s (28/115, 24.35%). Of the 115 reviews that performed evaluations, 26 (22.61%) conducted these analyses with fewer than ten primary studies, and a minority (24/115, 20.87%) reached the conclusion that publication bias was present in their work. While methods to assess publication bias were frequently noted among qualified systematic reviews, these methods are limited in value and could be improved by incorporating approaches that assess the degree of publication bias severity.

AB - In systematic reviews and meta-analyses, publication bias is particularly problematic, given that combining only statistically significant outcomes is likely to overestimate the true effect of an intervention since non-significant findings have been omitted. We examined practices for evaluating publication bias from gastroenterology literature. We performed a PubMed search to identify systematic reviews published in American Journal of Gastroenterology, Gut, and Gastroenterology from 2005 to 2015. Of the 304 found, 215 studies were eligible for inclusion based on relevant study characteristics. There were 190 systematic reviews which used at least one method to evaluate publication bias and/or included ten or more primary studies. There were 115/190 (60.53%) systematic reviews which used at least one method to evaluate publication bias. Most (105/115, 91.27%) qualified reviews used at least one method to evaluate publication bias and 78/115 (67.83%) used a combination of methods. The most common methods were funnel plot (100/115, 86.96%), Egger’s regression (67/115, 58.26%), and Begg’s (28/115, 24.35%). Of the 115 reviews that performed evaluations, 26 (22.61%) conducted these analyses with fewer than ten primary studies, and a minority (24/115, 20.87%) reached the conclusion that publication bias was present in their work. While methods to assess publication bias were frequently noted among qualified systematic reviews, these methods are limited in value and could be improved by incorporating approaches that assess the degree of publication bias severity.

KW - Gastroenterology

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Publication bias

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042587093&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s12664-018-0824-2

DO - 10.1007/s12664-018-0824-2

M3 - Article

C2 - 29488081

AN - SCOPUS:85042587093

VL - 37

SP - 58

EP - 62

JO - Indian Journal of Gastroenterology

JF - Indian Journal of Gastroenterology

SN - 0254-8860

IS - 1

ER -