Abstract
I would like to begin by providing a context for my discussion on publication bias: meta-analysis. As an epidemiologist, I have been particularly interested in data collection issues in relation to systematic reviews and meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is an observational study, where the study population comprises of studies and not people. As such, it has many of the same problems that any observational study has, even when the studies included are randomised trials. For example, the results of a meta-analysis may not be valid if the selection of studies to be included is biased. Publication bias is a special case of selection bias, observed when positive results are differentially published compared to negative results. A meta-analysis, or any systematic review, depends on data from published reports.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C (1994) Identification of relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 309: 1286–1291
Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL (1992) Factors influencing publication of research results: Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 267: 374–378
Dickersin K, Min YI NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Outline Journal Current Clinical Trials April 28, 1993.
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR (….) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337: 867–872
Dickersin K, Min N (1994) Publication bias: The problem that won’t go away. In: KS Warren, F. Mosteller (eds), Doing more good than harm, the evaluation of health care interventions. Ann NY Acad Sci 703: 135–146
Hetherington J, Dickersin K, Chalmers I, Meinert C (1989) Retrospective and prospective identification of unpublished controlled trials: Lesson from a survey of obstetricians and paediatricians. Paediatrics 84: 374–380
Scherer R, Dickersin K, Langenberg P (1994) Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts: A meta-analysis. JAMA 272: 158–162. Correction JAMA 272, 1410 (1994)
Stewart LA, Parmar MK (1993) Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? Lancet 341, 418–422
Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer (1996) Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. Lancet 347: 1713–1727
Dickersin K (1992) Why register clinical trials?-revisited. Controlled Clin
Bero L, Rennie D (1995) The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA 274: 1935–1938
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Dickersin, K. (1998). Publication bias. In: Hoffmeister, H., Szklo, M., Thamm, M. (eds) Epidemiological Practices in Research on Small Effects. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-80463-2_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-80463-2_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-80465-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-80463-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive