Publication and related biases in health services research: a systematic review of empirical evidence

被引：17

作者：

Ayorinde, Abimbola A. ^{[1
]}

Williams, Iestyn ^{[2
]}

Mannion, Russell ^{[2
]}

Song, Fujian ^{[3
]}

Skrybant, Magdalena ^{[4
]}

Lilford, Richard J. ^{[4
]}

Chen, Yen-Fu ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Univ Warwick, Warwick Med Sch, Div Hlth Sci, Warwick Ctr Appl Hlth Res & Delivery, Coventry, W Midlands, England

[2] Univ Birmingham, Sch Social Policy, Hlth Serv Management Ctr, Birmingham, W Midlands, England

[3] Univ East Anglia, Norwich Med Sch, Norwich, Norfolk, England

[4] Univ Birmingham, Inst Appl Hlth Res, Birmingham, W Midlands, England

来源：

BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY | 2020年 / 20卷 / 01期

关键词：

Publication bias; Outcome reporting bias; Dissemination bias; Grey literature; Research publication; Research registration; Health services research; Systematic review; Research methodology; Funnel plots; IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS; P-CURVE; QUALITY; INFORMATICS; STRATEGIES; COUNTRIES; COVERAGE; COSTS;

D O I：

10.1186/s12874-020-01010-1

中图分类号：

R19 [保健组织与事业（卫生事业管理）];

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background Publication and related biases (including publication bias, time-lag bias, outcome reporting bias and p-hacking) have been well documented in clinical research, but relatively little is known about their presence and extent in health services research (HSR). This paper aims to systematically review evidence concerning publication and related bias in quantitative HSR. Methods Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Cochrane EPOC Review Group and several websites were searched to July 2018. Information was obtained from: (1) Methodological studies that set out to investigate publication and related biases in HSR; (2) Systematic reviews of HSR topics which examined such biases as part of the review process. Relevant information was extracted from included studies by one reviewer and checked by another. Studies were appraised according to commonly accepted scientific principles due to lack of suitable checklists. Data were synthesised narratively. Results After screening 6155 citations, four methodological studies investigating publication bias in HSR and 184 systematic reviews of HSR topics (including three comparing published with unpublished evidence) were examined. Evidence suggestive of publication bias was reported in some of the methodological studies, but evidence presented was very weak, limited in both quality and scope. Reliable data on outcome reporting bias and p-hacking were scant. HSR systematic reviews in which published literature was compared with unpublished evidence found significant differences in the estimated intervention effects or association in some but not all cases. Conclusions Methodological research on publication and related biases in HSR is sparse. Evidence from available literature suggests that such biases may exist in HSR but their scale and impact are difficult to estimate for various reasons discussed in this paper. Systematic review registration PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016052333.

引用

页数：12