Cargando…

Application and investigation of a bound for outcome reporting bias

BACKGROUND: Direct 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. METHODS: A method for calculating the maximum bias in a meta-analysis due to p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Williamson, Paula R, Gamble, Carrol
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2007
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1821040/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341316
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-8-9
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Direct 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. METHODS: A 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSION: The Copas and Jackson approach is a useful method for systematic reviewers to apply to assess robustness to outcome reporting bias.