发表偏倚对荟萃分析影响的实证评估。
Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses.
作者信息
Sutton A J, Duval S J, Tweedie R L, Abrams K R, Jones D R
机构信息
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 6TP.
出版信息
BMJ. 2000 Jun 10;320(7249):1574-7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7249.1574.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effect of publication bias on the results and conclusions of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
DESIGN
Analysis of published meta-analyses by trim and fill method.
STUDIES
48 reviews in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews that considered a binary endpoint and contained 10 or more individual studies.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Number of reviews with missing studies and effect on conclusions of meta-analyses.
RESULTS
The trim and fill fixed effects analysis method estimated that 26 (54%) of reviews had missing studies and in 10 the number missing was significant. The corresponding figures with a random effects model were 23 (48%) and eight. In four cases, statistical inferences regarding the effect of the intervention were changed after the overall estimate for publication bias was adjusted for.
CONCLUSIONS
Publication or related biases were common within the sample of meta-analyses assessed. In most cases these biases did not affect the conclusions. Nevertheless, researchers should check routinely whether conclusions of systematic reviews are robust to possible non-random selection mechanisms.
目的
评估发表偏倚对系统评价和荟萃分析结果及结论的影响。
设计
采用修剪填充法对已发表的荟萃分析进行分析。
研究
Cochrane系统评价数据库中48项考虑二元终点且包含10项或更多个体研究的评价。
主要结局指标
存在缺失研究的评价数量以及对荟萃分析结论的影响。
结果
修剪填充固定效应分析方法估计，26项（54%）评价存在缺失研究，其中10项的缺失数量显著。随机效应模型的相应数字分别为23项（48%）和8项。在4个案例中，在对发表偏倚的总体估计进行调整后，关于干预效果的统计推断发生了变化。
结论
在所评估的荟萃分析样本中，发表或相关偏倚很常见。在大多数情况下，这些偏倚并不影响结论。尽管如此，研究人员应常规检查系统评价的结论对可能的非随机选择机制是否稳健。
Zotero 插件