2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.01.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Study designs to detect sponsorship and other biases in systematic reviews

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
32
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, if we consider the GRADE domains “study limitations” and “publication bias,” it is likely that within the entire evidence ensemble, several studies will be vulnerable to precisely the same kinds of bias, operating to the same or similar extent, and in the same direction [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. We have also only considered that a single contrast can be biased.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, if we consider the GRADE domains “study limitations” and “publication bias,” it is likely that within the entire evidence ensemble, several studies will be vulnerable to precisely the same kinds of bias, operating to the same or similar extent, and in the same direction [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. We have also only considered that a single contrast can be biased.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…77,96 Therefore, under the null hypothesis that the model adequately fits the data, D res would have a mean equal to the number of unconstrained data points for a perfectly fitted model. 77,96 The DIC is defined as:…”
Section: Assessing Model Fit and Deviancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…MTC relies on exactly the same assumptions as standard pairwise meta-analysis (i.e., choice and quality of the studies), although now these are applicable to the full set of interlinked trials. Therefore, the similarity between trials included in the network will also be a determinant of the internal validity of the analyses, at the risk of having a high confounding bias [49]. In the instances where direct and indirect evidence are combined for a particular comparison, it is also vital that there are no disagreements between the direct and indirect comparisons (for instance, in an MTC model comparing three treatments [e.g., A, B, and C], consistency is achieved when, for each pairwise comparison, no discrepancies can be found between the direct and indirect estimates of the parameter of interest [e.g., OR] derived from the model.…”
Section: Multiple Aggregate Data To Inform the Estimation Of Multiplementioning
confidence: 99%