2006
DOI: 10.1157/13101085
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Consideraciones prácticas acerca de la detección del sesgo de publicación

Abstract: The present review aims to answer 3 questions: does publication bias need to be assessed in meta-analyses?; what procedures, not requiring complex statistical approaches, can be applied to detect it?; and should other factors be taken into account when interpreting the procedures? The first question is easy to answer. Publication bias is a potential threat to the validity of the conclusions of meta-analyses. Therefore, both the MOOSE and QUOROM statements include publication bias in their guidelines; neverthel… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nevertheless, the limitations of this work include the number of articles included, which restricts interpretation using the methods of Egger and Begg, despite the fact that no publication bias of statistical significance were found 67 . It should not be forgotten, either that all the publications considered were written in English, and the tendency in the academic world is to publish the most striking results in international journals whereas local journals and grey literature report not so impactful findings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Nevertheless, the limitations of this work include the number of articles included, which restricts interpretation using the methods of Egger and Begg, despite the fact that no publication bias of statistical significance were found 67 . It should not be forgotten, either that all the publications considered were written in English, and the tendency in the academic world is to publish the most striking results in international journals whereas local journals and grey literature report not so impactful findings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…If I 2 statistic was ≤ 50%, we considered these studies as heterogeneous, and if they were = 50%, then we judged them to be homogeneous ( 24 ). To detect the publication bias, we drew a funnel plot for a single outcome with more than 10 eligible studies ( 25 , 26 ). For studies with multiple-arm design, essential data were extracted based on methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration ( 15 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The heterogeneity was qualitatively described by chi-square test, and quantitatively estimated by I 2 statistic which can estimate the proportion of the overall variation that is attributable to across study heterogeneity (37,38). When the number of included studies for individual outcome was less than 10, the funnel plot was not drawn (39).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%