Publication and Related Biases

Song, Fujian; Eastwood, Alison; Gilbody, Simon; Duley, Lelia; Sutton, Alex J.

doi:10.4135/9781848608344.n21

Cited by 215 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

161

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…283 There is as yet no evidence for the degree of publication bias likely in the field of diagnostic tests, but there is no reason to believe that it will be any better than in studies of therapeutic interventions. It is therefore possible that we have missed a proportion of English-language studies.…”

Section: Strength and Limitations Of The Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of tuberculosis infection

Dinnes¹,

Deeks²,

Kunst³

et al. 2007

Health Technol Assess

530

361

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per monograph and for the rest of the world £3 per monograph.You can order HTA monographs from our Despatch Agents:-fax (with credit card or official purchase order) -post (with credit card or official purchase order or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you either to pay securely by credit card or to print out your order and then post or fax it. NHS libraries can subscribe free of charge. Public libraries can subscribe at a very reduced cost of £100 for each volume (normally comprising 30-40 titles). The commercial subscription rate is £300 per volume. Please see our website for details. Subscriptions can only be purchased for the current or forthcoming volume. Contact details are as follows: Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to Direct Mail Works Ltd and drawn on a bank with a UK address. Paying by credit cardThe following cards are accepted by phone, fax, post or via the website ordering pages: Delta, Eurocard, Mastercard, Solo, Switch and Visa. We advise against sending credit card details in a plain email. Paying by official purchase orderYou can post or fax these, but they must be from public bodies (i.e. NHS or universities) within the UK. We cannot at present accept purchase orders from commercial companies or from outside the UK. How do I get a copy of HTA on CD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd.htm). Or contact Direct Mail Works (see contact details above) by email, post, fax or phone. HTA on CD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA Programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTA NIHR Health Technology Assessment ProgrammeT he Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, now part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined to include all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care, rather than settings of care. The research findings from the HTA Programme directly influence decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC). HTA findings also help to improve the quality of clinical practice in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service'. The HTA Programme is needs-led in that it fills gaps in the evidence needed by the NHS. There are three routes to the start of projects. First is the commissioned route. Suggestions for research are actively sought from people working in the NHS, the public and consumer groups and professional bodies such as ...

show abstract

Section: Strength and Limitations Of The Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of rapid diagnostic tests for the detection of tuberculosis infection

Dinnes¹,

Deeks²,

Kunst³

et al. 2007

Health Technol Assess

530

361

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These reviews depend on the published literature. However, as pointed out by SONG et al (563), the number of studies included in a literature review may be less than the number of all relevant studies conducted on a subject. If the studies or publications missing from a review have results that are systematically different from those included, bias or systematic error will occur.…”

Section: Opinionated Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Influence of Additives on Cigarette Related Health Risks

Klus¹,

Scherer²,

Müller

2012

Beiträge Zur Tabakforschung International/Contributions to Tobacco Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tobacco additives play an important role in the manufacturing and for the quality of tobacco products, particularly cigarettes and roll-your-own tobaccos. Attention is increasingly given to the potential effects of additives on consumer behavior and health. This review is intended to compile, collate and - to some degree - evaluate the wealth of pertinent scientific information available from the published literature and other special sources. At first, the reasons are set forth for the use of additives in cigarette manufacturing. In response to the growing controversy over the attractiveness and addictiveness of smoking, the clarification of terms and concepts is followed by a detailed discussion of two kinds of substances with particular relevance: Additives like ammonium compounds that are claimed to increase nicotine availability, and additives that are claimed to increase nicotine addictiveness.The composition and toxicity of mainstream smoke of cigarettes with and without additives are assessed in several respects. The potentials of pyrolysis studies are explored by looking at a number of key studies and some basic considerations regarding in vitro and in vivo toxicity testing are addressed. Five major literature reviews on additives published between 1994 and 2004, and the results of several comprehensive experimental studies covering a large range of additives, released between 2002 and 2012, are dealt with in detail. Single tobacco additives of particular importance (menthol, glycerol, 1,2-propylene glycol, sorbitol, sugars, cocoa, licorice, citric acid, triacetin, and ammonium compounds) are discussed in dedicated chapters, which are generally subdivided into special sections: Use and toxicological assessment; inclusion level in cigarettes, transfer and pyrolysis; attractiveness and addictiveness; effect on cigarette mainstream smoke composition; effect on cigarette mainstream smoke toxicity. Epidemiological findings and data obtained by the biomonitoring of smokers consuming cigarettes with and without additives are compiled and interpreted specifically for American blend cigarettes, Virginia cigarettes, “French” (dark) cigarettes and menthol cigarettes whereby the focus is on the effects of additives on smoking topography and potential health risks.Opinionated reviews were published in recent years that are compromised by arbitrary selection of sources and unbalanced views. Leaving those unconsidered, the aggregated scientific knowledge shows that tobacco additives have only occasional and limited effects on cigarette mainstream smoke composition, which are almost never reflected in the results of toxicological in vitro assays or in vivo studies. This supports the conclusion that tobacco additives are not likely to increase the known health risks of smoking. There is also no evidence for sustaining claims that certain additives increase nicotine availability or nicotine addictiveness.

show abstract

“…If the results of randomized trials originating from the People's Republic of China do not fundamentally differ from trials from other parts of the world, omitting them from systematic reviews may result in losing opportunities to identify real evidence of benefit or harm (Type II errors) (9). If, however, the results of trials from China are different from those more familiar to the rest of the world, reviews using only more accessible studies could be biased and misleading (Type I errors) (9). At present all we can be sure of is that this large body of evidence is relevant and should be considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For researchers undertaking systematic reviews of the effects of care for people with schizophrenia, failing to include relevant studies can lead to less precise results than would otherwise be possible, and, at worst, biased findings (9).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%