Application and investigation of a bound for outcome reporting bias

BackgroundDirect empirical evidence for the existence of outcome reporting bias is accumulating and this source of bias is recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.MethodsA method for calculating the maximum bias in a meta-analysis due to publication bias is adapted for the setting where within-study selective non-reporting of outcomes is suspected, and compared to the alternative approach of missing data imputation. The properties of both methods are investigated in realistic small sample situations.ResultsThe results suggest that the adapted Copas and Jackson approach is the preferred method for reviewers to apply as an initial assessment of robustness to within-study selective non-reporting.ConclusionThe Copas and Jackson approach is a useful method for systematic reviewers to apply to assess robustness to outcome reporting bias.

• Publication year

  2007

• Venue

  Trials

• Publication date

  2007-03-06

• Fields of study

  Medicine, Psychology

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-8-9PMID 17341316PMCID 1821040
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar, PubMed

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.

  2006cited by this paper
• Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: the Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetics research and randomized trials.

  2005cited by this paper
• In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias.

  2005cited by this paper
• Identification and impact of outcome selection bias in meta‐analysis

  2005influential reference
• Outcome selection bias in meta-analysis

  2005cited by this paper
• Modelling reporting bias: the operative mortality rate for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

  2005cited by this paper
• Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.

  2004cited by this paper
• A Bound for Publication Bias Based on the Fraction of Unpublished Studies

  2004cited by this paper
• Investigation of within-study selective reporting in clinical research: follow-up of applications submitted to a local research ethics committee.

  2002cited by this paper
• Modelling publication bias in meta-analysis: a review.

  2000cited by this paper
• Bias in meta‐analysis due to outcome variable selection within studies

  2000cited by this paper
• Publication bias and clinical trials.

  1987cited by this paper

• Impact of virtual care on health-related quality of life in children with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review protocol

  2022cites this paper
• Investigating and dealing with publication bias and other reporting biases in meta‐analyses of health research: A review

  2020cites this paper
• Model-based sensitivity analysis for outcome reporting bias in the meta analysis of benefit and harm outcomes

  2019cites this paper
• Antegrade intramedullary nail versus plate fixation in the treatment of humeral shaft fractures

  2019cites this paper
• Outcome Reporting Bias in Randomized Experiments on Substance Use Disorders

  2018cites this paper
• Outcome Reporting Bias in Randomized Experiments on Substance Use Disorders

  2018cites this paper
• Evaluating the evidence for macrophage presence in skeletal muscle and its relation to insulin resistance in obese mice and humans: a systematic review protocol

  2017cites this paper
• Influence of genetic variants on toxicity to anti-tubercular agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis (protocol)

  2017cites this paper
• Methods for detecting, quantifying, and adjusting for dissemination bias in meta-analysis are described.

  2016cites this paper
• Rethinking the assessment of risk of bias due to selective reporting: a cross-sectional study

  2016cites this paper
• Psychological interventions to improve psychological well-being in people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

  2016cites this paper
• Outcome Reporting Bias in Government-Sponsored Policy Evaluations: A Qualitative Content Analysis of 13 Studies

  2016cites this paper
• Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

  2016cites this paper
• Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

  2015cites this paper
• Oral antiviral therapy for prevention of genital herpes outbreaks in immunocompetent and nonpregnant patients.

  2014cites this paper
• A model-based correction for outcome reporting bias in meta-analysis.

  2014cites this paper
• The Empirical Evidence of Bias in Trials Measuring Treatment Differences

  2014cites this paper
• Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review

  2013cites this paper
• Selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis

  2013cites this paper
• Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews.

  2013cites this paper
• Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals.

  2013cites this paper
• Psychological treatments for common mental health problems experienced by informal carers of adults with chronic physical health conditions (Protocol)

  2013cites this paper
• A multivariate meta‐analysis approach for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews

  2012cites this paper
• GUEST EDITORIAL Biasinsystematicreviews

  2011cites this paper
• Bias in Systematic Reviews?

  2011cites this paper
• Assessing the potential for outcome reporting bias in a review: a tutorial

  2010cites this paper
• Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases.

  2010cites this paper
• The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews

  2010cites this paper
• Outcome reporting bias in trials (ORBIT)

  2009cites this paper
• Novel methods to deal with publication biases: secondary analysis of antidepressant trials in the FDA trial registry database and related journal publications

  2009cites this paper
• Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

  2008cites this paper