IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0081823.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Publication Bias in Recent Meta-Analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Michal Kicinski

Abstract

Introduction: Positive results have a greater chance of being published and outcomes that are statistically significant have a greater chance of being fully reported. One consequence of research underreporting is that it may influence the sample of studies that is available for a meta-analysis. Smaller studies are often characterized by larger effects in published meta-analyses, which can be possibly explained by publication bias. We investigated the association between the statistical significance of the results and the probability of being included in recent meta-analyses. Methods: For meta-analyses of clinical trials, we defined the relative risk as the ratio of the probability of including statistically significant results favoring the treatment to the probability of including other results. For meta-analyses of other studies, we defined the relative risk as the ratio of the probability of including biologically plausible statistically significant results to the probability of including other results. We applied a Bayesian selection model for meta-analyses that included at least 30 studies and were published in four major general medical journals (BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and PLOS Medicine) between 2008 and 2012. Results: We identified 49 meta-analyses. The estimate of the relative risk was greater than one in 42 meta-analyses, greater than two in 16 meta-analyses, greater than three in eight meta-analyses, and greater than five in four meta-analyses. In 10 out of 28 meta-analyses of clinical trials, there was strong evidence that statistically significant results favoring the treatment were more likely to be included. In 4 out of 19 meta-analyses of observational studies, there was strong evidence that plausible statistically significant outcomes had a higher probability of being included. Conclusions: Publication bias was present in a substantial proportion of large meta-analyses that were recently published in four major medical journals.

Suggested Citation

  • Michal Kicinski, 2013. "Publication Bias in Recent Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0081823
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081823
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081823
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081823&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0081823?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kerry Dwan & Douglas G Altman & Juan A Arnaiz & Jill Bloom & An-Wen Chan & Eugenia Cronin & Evelyne Decullier & Philippa J Easterbrook & Erik Von Elm & Carrol Gamble & Davina Ghersi & John P A Ioannid, 2008. "Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(8), pages 1-31, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christian Harlos & Tim C. Edgell & Johan Hollander, 2017. "No evidence of publication bias in climate change science," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 375-385, February.
    2. DeVito, Nicholas J. & Morley, Jessica & Goldacre, Ben, 2024. "Barriers and best practices to improving clinical trials transparency at UK public research institutions: A qualitative interview study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    3. Augusteijn, Hilde & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2017. "The Effect of Publication Bias on the Assessment of Heterogeneity," OSF Preprints gv25c, Center for Open Science.
    4. Sven Kepes & Michael A McDaniel, 2015. "The Validity of Conscientiousness Is Overestimated in the Prediction of Job Performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-22, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schaub, Jason & Stander, Willem J. & Montgomery, Paul, 2022. "LGBTQ+ Young People’s Health and Well-being Experiences in Out-of-home Social Care: A scoping review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    2. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin & Janna Heider, 2015. "A Study of Outcome Reporting Bias Using Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 61(1), pages 239-262.
    3. Nikolaos Pandis & Padhraig S Fleming & Helen Worthington & Kerry Dwan & Georgia Salanti, 2015. "Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    4. Wynanda A van Enst & Rob J P M Scholten & Lotty Hooft, 2012. "Identification of Additional Trials in Prospective Trial Registers for Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-5, August.
    5. Ewelina Rogozińska & Elizabeth Gargon & Rocío Olmedo-Requena & Amani Asour & Natalie A M Cooper & Claire L Vale & Janneke van’t Hooft, 2020. "Methods used to assess outcome consistency in clinical studies: A literature-based evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-12, July.
    6. Jamie J Kirkham & Doug G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2010. "Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-5, March.
    7. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7, April.
    8. Dongying Li & Tess Menotti & Yizhen Ding & Nancy M. Wells, 2021. "Life Course Nature Exposure and Mental Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Future Directions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-28, May.
    9. Thomas Pfeiffer & Lars Bertram & John P A Ioannidis, 2011. "Quantifying Selective Reporting and the Proteus Phenomenon for Multiple Datasets with Similar Bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-7, March.
    10. Ana Virgolino & Osvaldo Santos & Joana Costa & Mónica Fialho & Ivo Iavicoli & Tiina Santonen & Hanna Tolonen & Evangelia Samoli & Klea Katsouyanni & Georgios Baltatzis & Flavia Ruggieri & Annalisa Abb, 2021. "Challenges to Evidence Synthesis and Identification of Data Gaps in Human Biomonitoring," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-11, March.
    11. Carl Berning & Bernd Weiß, 2016. "Publication bias in the German social sciences: an application of the caliper test to three top-tier German social science journals," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 901-917, March.
    12. Thomas J. Kniesner & W. Kip Viscusi, 2023. "Compensating Differentials for Occupational Health and Safety Risks: Implications of Recent Evidence," Research in Labor Economics, in: 50th Celebratory Volume, volume 50, pages 83-116, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    13. Mangirdas Morkunas & Elzė Rudienė & Lukas Giriūnas & Laura Daučiūnienė, 2020. "Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, October.
    14. Michał Krawczyk, 2015. "The Search for Significance: A Few Peculiarities in the Distribution of P Values in Experimental Psychology Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    15. Violaine Smaïl-Faugeron & Hélène Fron Chabouis & Pierre Durieux & Jean-Pierre Attal & Michèle Muller-Bolla & Frédéric Courson, 2013. "Development of a Core Set of Outcomes for Randomized Controlled Trials with Multiple Outcomes – Example of Pulp Treatments of Primary Teeth for Extensive Decay in Children," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, January.
    16. Robbie C M van Aert & Jelte M Wicherts & Marcel A L M van Assen, 2019. "Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: A meta-meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-32, April.
    17. Stephen A Gallo & Afton S Carpenter & David Irwin & Caitlin D McPartland & Joseph Travis & Sofie Reynders & Lisa A Thompson & Scott R Glisson, 2014. "The Validation of Peer Review through Research Impact Measures and the Implications for Funding Strategies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-9, September.
    18. Jeffrey C. Valentine & Sandra Jo Wilson & David Rindskopf & Timothy S. Lau & Emily E. Tanner-Smith & Martha Yeide & Robin LaSota & Lisa Foster, 2017. "Synthesizing Evidence in Public Policy Contexts," Evaluation Review, , vol. 41(1), pages 3-26, February.
    19. Buehling, Kilian, 2021. "Changing research topic trends as an effect of publication rankings – The case of German economists and the Handelsblatt Ranking," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    20. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0081823. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.