Khayyamfar Amirmahdi, Khosravi Sepehr, Maghsoudi Robab, Shakiba Behnam
Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Department of Urology, Firoozgar Hospital, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences.
Urol J. 2022 Jul 23. doi: 10.22037/uj.v19i.7319.
Background Publication bias is one of the most important biases in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This bias occurs when the results of an article affect its publication, in other words positive or significant findings are more likely to be published than the other probable results. Previous studies have shown that publication bias has been a matter of concern in the meta-analysis and systematic reviews conducted in some medical fields. There is not a study that has evaluated the status of publication bias assessment in urology systematic reviews. We decided to assess the status of publication bias evaluation in systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in high impact urology journals. Methods This cross-sectional study was performed on 200 systematic reviews and meta-analysis published in four top urology journals based on their impact factor (European Urology, The Journal of Urology, BJU International and Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases). Two independent reviewers performed data extraction about publication bias evaluation in included systematic reviews. Results From the 200 included studies only 65 (32.5%) evaluated the publication bias in the review process and 31 reviews had reported publication bias in their study. Visual inspection of a funnel plot was the most frequent method used for evaluation of publication bias (61 from 65, 93.85%); this method was used alone in 34 articles and in combination with other methods in 27 papers. Conclusion The present study confirms that publication bias was formally evaluated in a small number of reviews and meta-analysis published in urology journals, therefore, this may be a risk factor that could decrease the robustness of outcomes and results of these studies. It seems that there is an essential need for authors, reviewers, and editors to pay better attention to evaluation of publication bias besides reporting it based on the aforementioned reporting guidelines.
背景 发表偏倚是系统评价和荟萃分析中最重要的偏倚之一。当一篇文章的结果影响其发表时，就会出现这种偏倚，换句话说，阳性或显著的研究结果比其他可能的结果更有可能被发表。先前的研究表明，在一些医学领域进行的荟萃分析和系统评价中，发表偏倚一直是一个令人担忧的问题。目前尚无研究评估泌尿外科系统评价中发表偏倚评估的现状。我们决定评估在高影响力泌尿外科杂志上发表的系统评价和荟萃分析中发表偏倚评估的现状。
方法 本横断面研究对发表在4种基于影响因子的顶级泌尿外科杂志（《欧洲泌尿外科杂志》《泌尿外科杂志》《英国泌尿外科杂志》和《前列腺癌与前列腺疾病》）上的200篇系统评价和荟萃分析进行。两名独立的评审员对纳入的系统评价中发表偏倚评估进行数据提取。
结果 在纳入的200项研究中，只有65项（32.5%）在评价过程中评估了发表偏倚，31项评价报告了其研究中的发表偏倚。漏斗图的直观检查是评估发表偏倚最常用的方法（65项中有61项，93.85%）；该方法单独使用的有34篇文章，与其他方法联合使用的有27篇论文。
结论 本研究证实，在泌尿外科杂志发表的少量评价和荟萃分析中，发表偏倚得到了正式评估，因此，这可能是一个降低这些研究结果稳健性的风险因素。除了根据上述报告指南进行报告外，作者、评审员和编辑似乎有必要更加重视发表偏倚的评估。
