Assessment of funnel plot asymmetry and publication bias in reproductive health meta-analyses: An analytic survey

被引：70
作者：
Souza J.P. [1 ,2 ]
Pileggi C. [2 ]
Cecatti J.G. [1 ]
机构：
[1] Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas
[2] Clinical Epidemiology Collaborative Group, Women's Integrated Health Care Center, University of Campinas
来源：
Reproductive Health | / 4卷 / 1期
关键词：
Publication Bias; Reproductive Health; Emergency Contraception; Cochrane Systematic Review; Analytic Survey;
D O I：
10.1186/1742-4755-4-3
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Background. Despite efforts to assure high methodological standards, systematic reviews may be affected by publication bias. The objective of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of publication bias in a collection of high quality systematic reviews on reproductive health. Methods. Systematic reviews included in the Reproductive Health Library (RHL), issue No 9, were assessed. Funnel plot was used to assess meta-analyses containing 10 or more trials reporting a binary outcome. A funnel plot, the estimated number of missing studies and the adjusted combined effect size were obtained using the "trim and fill method". Meta-analyses results that were not considered to be robust due to a possible publication bias were submitted to a more detailed assessment. Results. A total of 21 systematic reviews were assessed. The number of trials comprising each one ranged from 10 to 83 (median = 13), totaling 379 trials, whose results have been summarized. None of the reviews had reported any evaluation of publication bias or funnel plot asymmetry. Some degree of asymmetry in funnel plots was observed in 18 of the 21 meta-analyses evaluated (85.7%), with the estimated number of missing studies ranging from 1 to 18 (median = 3). Only for three meta-analyses, the conclusion could not be considered robust due to a possible publication bias. Conclusion. Asymmetry is a frequent finding in funnel plots of meta-analyses in reproductive health, but according to the present evaluation, less than 15% of meta-analyses report conclusions that would not be considered robust. Publication bias and other sources of asymmetry in funnel plots should be systematically addressed by reproductive health meta-analysts. Next amendments in Cochrane systematic reviews should include this type of evaluation. Further studies regarding the evolution of effect size and publication bias over time in systematic reviews in reproductive health are needed. © 2007 Souza et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]  
Implementing Best Practices in Reproductive Health
[2]  
Villar J., Gulmezoglu A.M., Khanna J., Carroli G., Hofmeyr G.J., Schulz K., Lumbiganon P., Evidence-based Reproductive Health in Developing Countries: The WHO Reproductive Health Library, 2, (1999)
[3]  
Rothstein H.R., Sutton A.J., Borenstein M., Publication Bias in Meta-analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustment, (2005)
[4]  
Lelorier J., Gregoire G., Benhaddad A., Lapierre J., Dederian F., Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials, N Engl J Med, 337, pp. 536-42, (1997)
[5]  
Oxman A.D., Cook D.J., Guyatt G.H., User's guide to the medical literature, JAMA, 272, pp. 1367-71, (1994)
[6]  
Maher D., Cook D.J., Eastwood S., Improving the quality of reports of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement, Lancet, 354, pp. 1896-900, (1999)
[7]  
Stroup D.F., Berlin J.A., Morton S.C., Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting, JAMA, 283, pp. 2008-12, (2000)
[8]  
Higgins J.P.T., Editors G.S., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5 [updated May 2005], The Cochrane Library, 3, (2005)
[9]  
Tallon D., Schneider M., Egger M., Quality of systematic reviews published in high impact general and specialist journals, Proceedings of 2nd Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics, (1999)
[10]  
Who, The Reproductive Health Library, 9, (2006)
1234