2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.024
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inadequate diversity of information resources searched in US-affiliated systematic reviews and meta-analyses: 2005–2016

Abstract: Objective: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) rely upon comprehensive searches into diverse resources that catalog primary studies. However, since what constitutes a comprehensive search is unclear, we examined trends in databases searched from 2005–2016, surrounding the publication of search guidelines in 2013, and associations between resources searched and evidence of publication bias in SRMAs involving human subjects. Study Design: To ensure comparability of included SRMAs over the 12 years in … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Grey literature and unpublished data help to avoid publication bias, because searching sources that only cover published results may just return more of the same evidence. By contrast, grey literature searches and searches of clinical trial registries may reduce bias by retrieving evidence from a more diverse range of sources (Pradhan et al, 2018 ). This could influence the conclusions and consequently health care decisions (Halfpenny et al, 2016 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Grey literature and unpublished data help to avoid publication bias, because searching sources that only cover published results may just return more of the same evidence. By contrast, grey literature searches and searches of clinical trial registries may reduce bias by retrieving evidence from a more diverse range of sources (Pradhan et al, 2018 ). This could influence the conclusions and consequently health care decisions (Halfpenny et al, 2016 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, despite the significance of PB, previous studies show that a considerable proportion of systematic reviewers in different fields, such as oncology 7 , anesthesiology 8 , dermatology 9 , cardiology 10 , and gastroenterology 11 did not try to evaluate its possible presence in their SRs and MAs. Also, a substantial proportion of SRs were found not to search resources other than published materials, hence increasing the risk of PB in their results 12 .…”
Section: Background 1-| Rationalementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unfortunately, despite the significance of PB, previous studies show that a considerable proportion of systematic reviewers in different healthcare fields, such as oncology [ 7 ], anesthesiology [ 8 ], dermatology [ 9 ], cardiology [ 10 ], and gastroenterology [ 11 ], did not try to evaluate its possible presence in their SRs and MAs. Also, a substantial proportion of SRs were found not to search resources other than published materials, hence increasing the risk of PB in their results [ 12 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%