Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias

Dubben, Hans-Hermann; Beck‐Bornholdt, Hans‐Peter

doi:10.1136/bmj.38478.497164.f7

Cited by 133 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 6 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is noteworthy that studies of potential publication bias do not themselves appear to demonstrate evidence of publication bias. 56 Once we had corrected the pooled effect size estimate for possible publication bias we found that, if the association between the DRD2 Taq1A polymorphism and alcoholism case status is real, the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) likely accounts for 0.2% of phenotypic variance. In addition, given a minor allele frequency of 0.3 and a prevalence of alcoholism of 5%, for an alpha level of 0.05, in excess of 1500 cases and a similar number of controls would be required in order to achieve 80% power to detect significant association.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of the DRD2 gene Taq1A polymorphism and alcoholism: a meta-analysis of case–control studies and evidence of publication bias

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the association of the dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2) Taq1A polymorphism and alcoholism, using meta-analytic techniques, and specifically undertook an investigation of possible publication bias. Potential publication bias represents a genuine risk to the integrity of published research, but its impact has rarely been documented. We observed a small effect of the DRD2 Taq1A polymorphism on risk of alcoholism, indicating increased alcoholism in individuals possessing the A1 allele of the Taq1A polymorphism (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.30, P < 0.001). This association remained significant when data from samples of European and East Asian ancestry were analyzed separately. We did not find evidence for association in high-severity alcoholism compared to low-severity alcoholism. Removing the first published study significantly reduced the magnitude of the pooled effect size estimate, although the association remained significant. In addition, we observed evidence for possible publication bias and for the strength of individual study effect size to be inversely related to year of publication. These results support the association of the DRD2 Taq1A polymorphism with alcoholism. This conclusion is qualified by the possibility of publication bias in the literature and the observed between-study heterogeneity, which indicates that the observed association may differ in strength between populations or may not exist at all in some populations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of the DRD2 gene Taq1A polymorphism and alcoholism: a meta-analysis of case–control studies and evidence of publication bias

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it is yet unknown to what extent bias patterns and postulated risk factors are generalizable phenomena that threaten all scientific fields in similar ways and whether studies documenting such problems are reproducible (5)(6)(7). Indeed, evidence suggests that biases may be heterogeneously distributed in the literature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-assessment of bias in science

Fanelli

Costas

Ioannidis

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

298

295

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous biases are believed to affect the scientific literature, but their actual prevalence across disciplines is unknown. To gain a comprehensive picture of the potential imprint of bias in science, we probed for the most commonly postulated bias-related patterns and risk factors, in a large random sample of meta-analyses taken from all disciplines. The magnitude of these biases varied widely across fields and was overall relatively small. However, we consistently observed a significant risk of small, early, and highly cited studies to overestimate effects and of studies not published in peer-reviewed journals to underestimate them. We also found at least partial confirmation of previous evidence suggesting that US studies and early studies might report more extreme effects, although these effects were smaller and more heterogeneously distributed across meta-analyses and disciplines. Authors publishing at high rates and receiving many citations were, overall, not at greater risk of bias. However, effect sizes were likely to be overestimated by early-career researchers, those working in small or long-distance collaborations, and those responsible for scientific misconduct, supporting hypotheses that connect bias to situational factors, lack of mutual control, and individual integrity. Some of these patterns and risk factors might have modestly increased in intensity over time, particularly in the social sciences. Our findings suggest that, besides one being routinely cautious that published small, highly-cited, and earlier studies may yield inflated results, the feasibility and costs of interventions to attenuate biases in the literature might need to be discussed on a discipline-specific and topic-specific basis.bias | misconduct | meta-analysis | integrity | meta-research

show abstract

“…[6][7][8] There are also new published studies that investigated methods for dealing with publication bias (for example [9][10][11] ). Dubben and Beck-Bornholdt (2005) used the funnel plot approach, and found no evidence of publication bias in studies of publication bias. 12 They acknowledged that the analysis was handicapped by insufficient power (with only 26 included studies) and also by the diverse definitions of publication bias in the primary studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases

Song

Parekh²,

Hooper³

et al. 2010

Health Technol Assess

804

682

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How to obtain copies of this and other HTA programme reports An electronic version of this title, in Adobe Acrobat format, is available for downloading free of charge for personal use from the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk). A fully searchable DVD is also available (see below).Printed copies of HTA journal series issues cost £20 each (post and packing free in the UK) to both public and private sector purchasers from our despatch agents.Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per issue and for the rest of the world £3 per issue. How to order:-fax (with credit card details) -post (with credit card details or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you to either print out your order or download a blank order form. Contact details are as follows:Synergie UK (HTA Department) Digital House, The Loddon Centre Wade Road Basingstoke Hants RG24 8QW Email: orders@hta.ac.uk Tel: 0845 812 4000 -ask for 'HTA Payment Services' (out-of-hours answer-phone service) Fax: 0845 812 4001 -put 'HTA Order' on the fax header Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to University of Southampton and drawn on a bank with a UK address. Paying by credit cardYou can order using your credit card by phone, fax or post. SubscriptionsNHS libraries can subscribe free of charge. Public libraries can subscribe at a reduced cost of £100 for each volume (normally comprising 40-50 titles). The commercial subscription rate is £400 per volume (addresses within the UK) and £600 per volume (addresses outside the UK). Please see our website for details. Subscriptions can be purchased only for the current or forthcoming volume. How do I get a copy of HTA on DVD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd/index.shtml). HTA on DVD 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, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term 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 project...

show abstract

Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias

Cited by 133 publications

References 6 publications

Association of the DRD2 gene Taq1A polymorphism and alcoholism: a meta-analysis of case–control studies and evidence of publication bias

Association of the DRD2 gene Taq1A polymorphism and alcoholism: a meta-analysis of case–control studies and evidence of publication bias

Meta-assessment of bias in science

Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About