A multivariate meta-analysis approach for reducing the impact of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (20) ◽  
pp. 2179-2195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie J. Kirkham ◽  
Richard D. Riley ◽  
Paula R. Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Bias ◽  
Analysis Approach ◽  
Outcome Reporting Bias ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews

BMJ ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 340 (feb15 1) ◽  
pp. c365-c365 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. J Kirkham ◽  
K. M Dwan ◽  
D. G Altman ◽  
C. Gamble ◽  
S. Dodd ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Outcome Reporting Bias ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals A model-based correction for outcome reporting bias in meta-analysis

Biostatistics ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 370-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Copas ◽  
K. Dwan ◽  
J. Kirkham ◽  
P. Williamson
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Bias ◽  
Outcome Reporting Bias ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Model Based

Model-based sensitivity analysis for outcome reporting bias in the meta analysis of benefit and harm outcomes

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 889-903 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Copas ◽  
Anthony Marson ◽  
Paula Williamson ◽  
Jamie Kirkham
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Partial Epilepsy ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Reporting Bias ◽  
Drug Resistant ◽  
Cochrane Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Reporting Bias ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Test Treatment

Outcome reporting bias occurs when outcomes in research studies are selectively reported, the selection being influenced by the study results. For benefit outcomes, we have shown how risk assessments using the Outcome Reporting Bias in Trials risk classification scale can be used to calculate bias-adjusted treatment effect estimates. This paper presents a new and simpler version of the benefits method, and shows how it can be extended to cover the partial reporting and non-reporting of harm outcomes. Our motivating example is a Cochrane systematic review of 12 studies of Topiramate add-on therapy for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Bias adjustments for partially reported or unreported outcomes suggest that the review has overestimated the benefits and underestimated the harms of the test treatment.

scholarly journals Assessment of publication bias and outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery research: A meta-epidemiological study

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. e0227580
Author(s):  
Abimbola A. Ayorinde ◽  
Iestyn Williams ◽  
Russell Mannion ◽  
Fujian Song ◽  
Magdalena Skrybant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Services ◽  
Epidemiological Study ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Bias ◽  
Outcome Reporting Bias ◽  
Outcome Reporting

scholarly journals Correcting for outcome reporting bias in a meta-analysis: A meta-regression approach

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robbie Cornelis Maria van Aert ◽  
Jelte M. Wicherts
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
New Method ◽  
Reporting Bias ◽  
Average Effect ◽  
Outcome Reporting Bias ◽  
Monte Carlo Simulation Study ◽  
Average Effect Size ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Meta Regression

Outcome reporting bias (ORB) refers to the biasing effect caused by researchers selectively reporting outcomes based on their statistical significance. ORB leads to inflated average effect size estimates in a meta-analysis if only the outcome with the largest effect size is reported due to ORB. We propose a new method (CORB) to correct for ORB that includes an estimate of the variability of the outcomes' effect size as a moderator in a meta-regression model. An estimate of the variability of the outcomes' effect size can be computed by assuming a correlation among the outcomes. Results of a Monte-Carlo simulation study showed that effect size in meta-analyses may be severely overestimated without any correction for ORB. The CORB method accurately estimates effect size when overestimation caused by ORB is the largest. Applying the new method to a meta-analysis on the effect of playing violent video games on aggressive cognition showed that the average effect size estimate decreased when correcting for ORB. We recommend to routinely apply methods to correct for ORB in any meta-analysis. We provide annotated R code and functions to facilitate researchers to apply the CORB method.

scholarly journals Outcome reporting bias in Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e032497
Author(s):  
Kieran Shah ◽  
Gregory Egan ◽  
Lawrence (Nichoe) Huan ◽  
Jamie Kirkham ◽  
Emma Reid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Reporting Bias ◽  
Outcome Reporting Bias ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Knowledge Of Results ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

BackgroundDiscrepancies in outcome reporting (DOR) between protocol and published studies include inclusions of new outcomes, omission of prespecified outcomes, upgrade and downgrade of secondary and primary outcomes, and changes in definitions of prespecified outcomes. DOR can result in outcome reporting bias (ORB) when changes in outcomes occur after knowledge of results. This has potential to overestimate treatment effects and underestimate harms. This can also occur at the level of systematic reviews when changes in outcomes occur after knowledge of results of included studies. The prevalence of DOR and ORB in systematic reviews is unknown in systematic reviews published post-2007.ObjectiveTo estimate the prevalence of DOR and risk of ORB in all Cochrane reviews between the years 2007 and 2014.MethodsA stratified random sampling approach was applied to collect a representative sample of Cochrane systematic reviews from each Cochrane review group. DOR was assessed by matching outcomes in each systematic review with their respective protocol. When DOR occurred, reviews were further assessed if there was a risk of ORB (unclear, low or high risk). We classified DOR as a high risk for ORB if the discrepancy occurred after knowledge of results in the systematic review.Results150 of 350 (43%) review and protocol pairings contained DOR. When reviews were further scrutinised, 23% (35 of 150) of reviews with DOR contained a high risk of ORB, with changes being made after knowledge of results from individual trials.ConclusionsIn our study, we identified just under a half of Cochrane reviews with at least one DOR. Of these, a fifth were at high risk of ORB. The presence of DOR and ORB in Cochrane reviews is of great concern; however, a solution is relatively simple. Authors are encouraged to be transparent where outcomes change and to describe the legitimacy of changing outcomes in order to prevent suspicion of bias.

scholarly journals Outcome reporting bias in trials: a methodological approach for assessment and adjustment in systematic reviews

BMJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. k3802 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie J Kirkham ◽  
Douglas G Altman ◽  
An-Wen Chan ◽  
Carrol Gamble ◽  
Kerry M Dwan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Reporting Bias ◽  
Outcome Reporting Bias ◽  
Outcome Reporting
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document