Yerokhin Vadim V, Carr Branden K, Sneed Guy, Vassar Matt
Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W. 17th St., Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.
St. John Clinic Administration, 1923 S. Utica, Davis Tower, ste 400, Tulsa, OK, USA.
BMC Res Notes. 2016 Oct 21;9(1):475. doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-2280-3.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that do not include unpublished data in their analyses may be prone to publication bias, which in some cases has been shown to have deleterious consequences on determining the efficacy of interventions.
We retrieved systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the past 8 years (January 1, 2007-December 31, 2015) from the top 20 journals in the Pregnancy and Childbirth literature, as rated by Google Scholar's h5-index. A meta-epidemiologic analysis was performed to determine the frequency with which authors searched clinical trials registries for unpublished data.
A PubMed search retrieved 372 citations, 297 of which were deemed to be either a systematic review or a meta-analysis and were included for analysis. Twelve (4 %) of these searched at least one WHO-approved clinical trials registry or clinicaltrials.gov.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in pregnancy and childbirth journals do not routinely report searches of clinical trials registries. Including these registries in systematic reviews may be a promising avenue to limit publication bias if registry searches locate unpublished trial data that could be used in the systematic review.
系统评价和荟萃分析若在分析中未纳入未发表数据，可能易于出现发表偏倚，在某些情况下，已证明这会对确定干预措施的疗效产生有害影响。
我们从谷歌学术h5指数排名前20的妊娠与分娩文献期刊中检索了过去8年（2007年1月1日至2015年12月31日）发表的系统评价和荟萃分析。进行了一项元流行病学分析，以确定作者检索临床试验注册库中未发表数据的频率。
PubMed检索到372条引文，其中297条被认为是系统评价或荟萃分析，并纳入分析。其中12项（4%）检索了至少一个世界卫生组织批准的临床试验注册库或clinicaltrials.gov。
妊娠与分娩期刊发表的系统评价和荟萃分析通常不报告对临床试验注册库的检索情况。如果检索注册库能找到可用于系统评价的未发表试验数据，将这些注册库纳入系统评价可能是限制发表偏倚的一个有前景的途径。
