Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.
Prevention Research Collaboration, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
PLoS Biol. 2018 Jun 18;16(6):e2005761. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005761. eCollection 2018 Jun.
Reporting bias in the literature occurs when there is selective revealing or suppression of results, influenced by the direction of findings. We assessed the risk of reporting bias in the epidemiological literature on health-related behavior (tobacco, alcohol, diet, physical activity, and sedentary behavior) and cardiovascular disease mortality and all-cause mortality and provided a comparative assessment of reporting bias between health-related behavior and statin (in primary prevention) meta-analyses. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register Database, and Web of Science for systematic reviews synthesizing the associations of health-related behavior and statins with cardiovascular disease mortality and all-cause mortality published between 2010 and 2016. Risk of bias in systematic reviews was assessed using the ROBIS tool. Reporting bias in the literature was evaluated via small-study effect and excess significance tests. We included 49 systematic reviews in our study. The majority of these reviews exhibited a high overall risk of bias, with a higher extent in health-related behavior reviews, relative to statins. We reperformed 111 meta-analyses conducted across these reviews, of which 65% had statistically significant results (P < 0.05). Around 22% of health-related behavior meta-analyses showed small-study effect, as compared to none of statin meta-analyses. Physical activity and the smoking research areas had more than 40% of meta-analyses with small-study effect. We found evidence of excess significance in 26% of health-related behavior meta-analyses, as compared to none of statin meta-analyses. Half of the meta-analyses from physical activity, 26% from diet, 18% from sedentary behavior, 14% for smoking, and 12% from alcohol showed evidence of excess significance bias. These biases may be distorting the body of evidence available by providing inaccurate estimates of preventive effects on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality.
文献报告偏倚是指由于研究结果的方向性,导致选择性地揭示或隐瞒结果。我们评估了与健康相关行为(烟草、酒精、饮食、身体活动和久坐行为)和心血管疾病死亡率及全因死亡率相关的流行病学文献中报告偏倚的风险,并对健康相关行为和他汀类药物(一级预防)荟萃分析之间的报告偏倚进行了比较评估。我们在 Medline、Embase、Cochrane 方法学注册数据库和 Web of Science 中搜索了 2010 年至 2016 年间发表的系统综述,这些综述综合了健康相关行为和他汀类药物与心血管疾病死亡率及全因死亡率之间的关联。使用 ROBIS 工具评估系统综述的偏倚风险。通过小样本效应和过度显著性检验评估文献中的报告偏倚。我们纳入了 49 项系统综述。这些综述中的大多数存在较高的整体偏倚风险,其中与他汀类药物相比,与健康相关的行为综述中的偏倚程度更高。我们重新进行了这些综述中进行的 111 项荟萃分析,其中 65%的结果具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。大约 22%的与健康相关的行为荟萃分析显示存在小样本效应,而他汀类药物荟萃分析中则没有。身体活动和吸烟研究领域有超过 40%的荟萃分析存在小样本效应。我们在 26%的与健康相关的行为荟萃分析中发现了过度显著性的证据,而他汀类药物荟萃分析中则没有。来自身体活动的一半荟萃分析、饮食的 26%、久坐行为的 18%、吸烟的 14%和酒精的 12%显示出过度显著性偏倚的证据。这些偏倚可能会通过提供对心血管和全因死亡率的预防效果的不准确估计,从而扭曲现有的证据体。