Abstract

BackgroundMeta-analyses are particularly vulnerable to the effects of publication bias. Despite methodologists’ best efforts to locate all evidence for a given topic the most comprehensive searches are likely to miss unpublished studies and studies that are published in the gray literature only. If the results of the missing studies differ systematically from the published ones, a meta-analysis will be biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention’s effects.As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:▪ To assess the impact of studies that are not published or published in the gray literature on pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses (quantitative measure).▪ To assess whether the inclusion of unpublished studies or studies published in the gray literature leads to different conclusions in meta-analyses (qualitative measure).Methods/DesignInclusion criteria: Methodological research projects of a cohort of meta-analyses which compare the effect of the inclusion or exclusion of unpublished studies or studies published in the gray literature.Literature search: To identify relevant research projects we will conduct electronic searches in Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library; check reference lists; and contact experts.Outcomes: 1) The extent to which the effect estimate in a meta-analyses changes with the inclusion or exclusion of studies that were not published or published in the gray literature; and 2) the extent to which the inclusion of unpublished studies impacts the meta-analyses’ conclusions.Data collection: Information will be collected on the area of health care; the number of meta-analyses included in the methodological research project; the number of studies included in the meta-analyses; the number of study participants; the number and type of unpublished studies; studies published in the gray literature and published studies; the sources used to retrieve studies that are unpublished, published in the gray literature, or commercially published; and the validity of the methodological research project.Data synthesis: Data synthesis will involve descriptive and statistical summaries of the findings of the included methodological research projects.DiscussionResults are expected to be publicly available in the middle of 2013.

Highlights

  • Meta-analyses are vulnerable to the effects of publication bias

  • In terms of the above mentioned controversies regarding the inclusion of unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature on the results of metaanalyses, we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:

  • This systematic review seeks to comprehensively synthesize the growing body of research that is related to the impact of including unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature in meta-analyses

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Despite methodologists’ best efforts to locate all evidence for a given topic the most comprehensive searches are likely to miss unpublished studies and studies that are published in the gray literature only. If the results of the missing studies differ systematically from the published ones, a meta-analysis will be biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention’s effects. Despite methodologists’ best efforts to locate all eligible evidence for a given topic the most comprehensive searches are likely to miss unpublished studies and studies that are not commercially published and, are not indexed in respective databases (so called gray literature, such as conference abstract, dissertations, policy documents, book chapters). Research is needed to help assess the potential implications for reviewers of not including gray literature and unpublished studies in meta-analyses of health care interventions

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call