Publication Bias in Reproductive Health Meta-Analyses
Author Information
Author(s): João P Souza, Cynthia Pileggi, José G Cecatti
Primary Institution: University of Campinas, Brazil
Hypothesis
The study aims to evaluate the occurrence of publication bias in systematic reviews on reproductive health.
Conclusion
Asymmetry is common in funnel plots of reproductive health meta-analyses, but less than 15% report conclusions that are not robust.
Supporting Evidence
- 18 out of 21 meta-analyses showed some degree of asymmetry in funnel plots.
- Only 3 meta-analyses had conclusions that could not be considered robust due to publication bias.
- None of the reviews reported any evaluation of publication bias.
Takeaway
The study looked at many research reviews about reproductive health and found that many didn't check for publication bias, which can make their results unreliable.
Methodology
The study assessed systematic reviews from the Reproductive Health Library using funnel plots and the 'trim and fill' method to evaluate publication bias.
Potential Biases
Potential selection bias due to the focus on Cochrane meta-analyses.
Limitations
The study did not report the use of sensitivity analysis in the meta-analyses evaluated.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website