Cargando…

The strong focus on positive results in abstracts may cause bias in systematic reviews: a case study on abstract reporting bias

BACKGROUND: Research articles tend to focus on positive findings in their abstract, especially if multiple outcomes have been studied. At the same time, search queries in databases are generally limited to the abstract, title and keywords fields of an article. Negative findings are therefore less li...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Duyx, Bram, Swaen, Gerard M. H., Urlings, Miriam J. E., Bouter, Lex M., Zeegers, Maurice P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6637611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31315665
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1082-9
_version_ 1783436277883863040
author Duyx, Bram
Swaen, Gerard M. H.
Urlings, Miriam J. E.
Bouter, Lex M.
Zeegers, Maurice P.
author_facet Duyx, Bram
Swaen, Gerard M. H.
Urlings, Miriam J. E.
Bouter, Lex M.
Zeegers, Maurice P.
author_sort Duyx, Bram
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Research articles tend to focus on positive findings in their abstract, especially if multiple outcomes have been studied. At the same time, search queries in databases are generally limited to the abstract, title and keywords fields of an article. Negative findings are therefore less likely to be detected by systematic searches and to appear in systematic reviews. We aim to assess the occurrence of this ‘abstract reporting bias’ and quantify its impact in the literature on the association between diesel exhaust exposure (DEE) and bladder cancer. METHODS: We set up a broad search query related to DEE and cancer in general. Full-texts of the articles identified in the search output were manually scanned. Articles were included if they reported, anywhere in the full-text, the association between DEE and bladder cancer. We assume that the use of a broad search query and manual full-text scanning allowed us to catch all the relevant articles, including those in which bladder cancer was not mentioned in the abstract, title or keywords. RESULTS: We identified 28 articles. Only 12 of these (43%) had mentioned bladder in their abstract, title or keywords. A meta-analysis based on these 12 detectable articles yielded a pooled risk estimate of 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97–1.25), whereas the meta-analysis based on all 28 articles yielded a pooled estimate of 1.03 (95% CI 0.96–1.11). CONCLUSIONS: This case study on abstract reporting bias shows that (a) more than half of all relevant articles were missed by a conventional search query and (b) this led to an overestimation of the pooled effect. Detection of articles will be improved if all studied exposure and outcome variables are reported in the keywords. The restriction on the maximum number of keywords should be lifted. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-1082-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6637611
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66376112019-07-25 The strong focus on positive results in abstracts may cause bias in systematic reviews: a case study on abstract reporting bias Duyx, Bram Swaen, Gerard M. H. Urlings, Miriam J. E. Bouter, Lex M. Zeegers, Maurice P. Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Research articles tend to focus on positive findings in their abstract, especially if multiple outcomes have been studied. At the same time, search queries in databases are generally limited to the abstract, title and keywords fields of an article. Negative findings are therefore less likely to be detected by systematic searches and to appear in systematic reviews. We aim to assess the occurrence of this ‘abstract reporting bias’ and quantify its impact in the literature on the association between diesel exhaust exposure (DEE) and bladder cancer. METHODS: We set up a broad search query related to DEE and cancer in general. Full-texts of the articles identified in the search output were manually scanned. Articles were included if they reported, anywhere in the full-text, the association between DEE and bladder cancer. We assume that the use of a broad search query and manual full-text scanning allowed us to catch all the relevant articles, including those in which bladder cancer was not mentioned in the abstract, title or keywords. RESULTS: We identified 28 articles. Only 12 of these (43%) had mentioned bladder in their abstract, title or keywords. A meta-analysis based on these 12 detectable articles yielded a pooled risk estimate of 1.10 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97–1.25), whereas the meta-analysis based on all 28 articles yielded a pooled estimate of 1.03 (95% CI 0.96–1.11). CONCLUSIONS: This case study on abstract reporting bias shows that (a) more than half of all relevant articles were missed by a conventional search query and (b) this led to an overestimation of the pooled effect. Detection of articles will be improved if all studied exposure and outcome variables are reported in the keywords. The restriction on the maximum number of keywords should be lifted. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-1082-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-07-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6637611/ /pubmed/31315665 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1082-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Duyx, Bram
Swaen, Gerard M. H.
Urlings, Miriam J. E.
Bouter, Lex M.
Zeegers, Maurice P.
The strong focus on positive results in abstracts may cause bias in systematic reviews: a case study on abstract reporting bias
title The strong focus on positive results in abstracts may cause bias in systematic reviews: a case study on abstract reporting bias
title_full The strong focus on positive results in abstracts may cause bias in systematic reviews: a case study on abstract reporting bias
title_fullStr The strong focus on positive results in abstracts may cause bias in systematic reviews: a case study on abstract reporting bias
title_full_unstemmed The strong focus on positive results in abstracts may cause bias in systematic reviews: a case study on abstract reporting bias
title_short The strong focus on positive results in abstracts may cause bias in systematic reviews: a case study on abstract reporting bias
title_sort strong focus on positive results in abstracts may cause bias in systematic reviews: a case study on abstract reporting bias
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6637611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31315665
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1082-9
work_keys_str_mv AT duyxbram thestrongfocusonpositiveresultsinabstractsmaycausebiasinsystematicreviewsacasestudyonabstractreportingbias
AT swaengerardmh thestrongfocusonpositiveresultsinabstractsmaycausebiasinsystematicreviewsacasestudyonabstractreportingbias
AT urlingsmiriamje thestrongfocusonpositiveresultsinabstractsmaycausebiasinsystematicreviewsacasestudyonabstractreportingbias
AT bouterlexm thestrongfocusonpositiveresultsinabstractsmaycausebiasinsystematicreviewsacasestudyonabstractreportingbias
AT zeegersmauricep thestrongfocusonpositiveresultsinabstractsmaycausebiasinsystematicreviewsacasestudyonabstractreportingbias
AT duyxbram strongfocusonpositiveresultsinabstractsmaycausebiasinsystematicreviewsacasestudyonabstractreportingbias
AT swaengerardmh strongfocusonpositiveresultsinabstractsmaycausebiasinsystematicreviewsacasestudyonabstractreportingbias
AT urlingsmiriamje strongfocusonpositiveresultsinabstractsmaycausebiasinsystematicreviewsacasestudyonabstractreportingbias
AT bouterlexm strongfocusonpositiveresultsinabstractsmaycausebiasinsystematicreviewsacasestudyonabstractreportingbias
AT zeegersmauricep strongfocusonpositiveresultsinabstractsmaycausebiasinsystematicreviewsacasestudyonabstractreportingbias