Most overviews of Cochrane reviews neglected potential biases from dual authorship

Büchter, Roland Brian; Pieper, Dawid

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.008

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This can take many forms, but specifically with regards to systematic reviews, there is potential for confirmation bias when authors of reviews are themselves authors of the primary studies and/ or previous systematic reviews on the same topic [60] or have non-financial conflicts of interest [61]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionRapid reviews (RR), using abbreviated systematic review (SR) methods, are becoming more popular among decision-makers. This World Health Organization commissioned study sought to summarize RR methods, identify differences, and highlight potential biases between RR and SR.MethodsReview of RR methods (Key Question 1 [KQ1]), meta-epidemiologic studies comparing reliability/ validity of RR and SR methods (KQ2), and their potential associated biases (KQ3). We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, grey literature, and checked reference lists, used personal contacts, and crowdsourcing (e.g. email listservs). Selection and data extraction was conducted by one reviewer (KQ1) or two reviewers independently (KQ2-3).ResultsAcross all KQs, we identified 42,743 citations through the literature searches. KQ1: RR methods from 29 organizations were reviewed. There was no consensus on which aspects of the SR process to abbreviate. KQ2: Studies comparing the conclusions of RR and SR (n = 9) found them to be generally similar. Where major differences were identified, it was attributed to the inclusion of evidence from different sources (e.g. searching different databases or including different study designs). KQ3: Potential biases introduced into the review process were well-identified although not necessarily supported by empirical evidence, and focused mainly on selective outcome reporting and publication biases.ConclusionRR approaches are context and organization specific. Existing comparative evidence has found similar conclusions derived from RR and SR, but there is a lack of evidence comparing the potential of bias in both evidence synthesis approaches. Further research and decision aids are needed to help decision makers and reviewers balance the benefits of providing timely evidence with the potential for biased findings.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two independent overview authors will also examine possible presence of meta-biases, including publication bias, selective outcome reporting, and dual co-authorship. Handling of heterogeneity for meta-analyses and other potential sources of bias will be described [ 38 – 41 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to control myopia progression in children: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMyopia is a common visual disorder with increasing prevalence among developed countries of the world. Myopia constitutes a substantial risk factor for several ocular conditions that can lead to blindness. The purpose of this study is to conduct an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in order to identify and appraise robust research evidence regarding the management of myopia progression in children and adolescents.MethodsA literature search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database via Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). We will search for systematic reviews or meta-analyses that examine optical or pharmaceutical modalities for myopia control. Two independent overview authors will screen the titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria. Individual study’s methodological quality and quality of evidence for each outcome of interest will be assessed by two independent authors using the ROBIS tool and GRADE rating, respectively. In cases of disagreement, consensus will be reached with the help of a third author. Our primary outcomes will be the mean change in refractive error, mean axial length change, and adverse events. A citation matrix will be generated, and the corrected covered area (CCA) will be estimated, in order to identify overlapping primary studies. Possible meta-biases and measures of heterogeneity will be described, and cases of dual co-authorship will be identified and discussed. If any recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are detected, these will be appraised and their findings will be presented. An overall summary of outcomes will be provided using descriptive statistics and will be supplemented by narrative synthesis.DiscussionThis overview will examine the high level of existing evidence for treatment of myopia progression. Efficient interventions will be identified, and side effects will be reported. The expected benefit is that all robust recent research evidence will be compiled in a single study. The results may inform future research in this area, which should provide insight into the appropriate regimes for the administration of these modalities and contribute to future guideline development.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017068204 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0580-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…2 Author bias-a systematic difference introduced by an investigator's prior knowledge, beliefs, opinions, academic pressure to publish, or relationships (e.g., financial)-can potentially distort research findings, including the presentation of results and conclusions. [3][4][5] Author bias may result from data manipulation and/or fabrication, academic pressure to publish, effect of study sponsorship, and professional competitiveness. 3,6,7 The prevalence and impact of this specific bias is unclear and methods for detection have only recently been suggested, [8][9][10] but are rarely applied.…”

Section: Résumémentioning

confidence: 99%

Can authorship bias be detected in meta-analysis?

Abou‐Setta

Rabbani

Lix

et al. 2019

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Statistical approaches have been developed to detect bias in individual trials, but guidance on how to detect systematic differences at a meta-analytical level is lacking. In this paper, we elucidate whether author bias can be detected in a cohort of randomized trials included in a meta-analysis. Methods We utilized mortality data from 35 trials (10,880 patients) included in our previously published metaanalysis. First, we linked each author with their trial (or trials). Then we calculated author-specific odds ratios using univariate cross table methods. Finally, we tested the effect of authorship by comparing each author's estimated odds ratio with all other pooled estimated odds ratios using meta-regression. ResultsThe median number of investigators named as authors on the primary trial reports was six (interquartile range: 5-8, range: 2-32). The results showed that the slope of author effect for mortality ranged from -1.35 to 0.71. We identified only one author team showing a marginally significant effect (-0.39; 95% confidence interval, -0.78 to 0.00). This author team has a history of retractions due to data manipulations and ethical violations. Conclusion When combining trial-level data to produce a pooled effect estimate, investigators must consider sources of potential bias. Our results suggest that systematic errors can be detected using meta-regression, although further research is needed to examine the sensitivity of this model. Systematic reviewers will benefit from the availability of

show abstract

Most overviews of Cochrane reviews neglected potential biases from dual authorship

Cited by 13 publications

References 7 publications

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

Interventions to control myopia progression in children: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Can authorship bias be detected in meta-analysis?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About