Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals

Abstract

Many of these reviews reported following published guidelines such as PRISMA or MOOSE, yet only half appropriately addressed publication bias in their reviews. Compared with previous research, our study found fewer reviews assessing publication bias and greater likelihood of publication bias among reviews not performing these evaluations.

Critical appraisal of methodological quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analysis in Paediatric Dentistry journals

“…We attempted to consider only mainstream Paediatric Dentistry journals and hence might not have covered all the SRs under the umbrella of “Paediatric Dentistry”, for example those published in journals that were less specialized in scope. This approach, including only top journals in methodological reviews, is a common one and has been employed earlier in Medicine as well as Dentistry in the areas of Orthodontics and Endodontics . Hence, in this study, we achieved our aim of identifying the issues relating to the quality of SRs and MA and framing recommendations based on the results.…”

Peer Review #1 of "Is publication bias present in gastroenterological research? An analysis of abstracts presented at an annual congress (v0.2)"

“…anesthesiology (Chong et al 2016;De Oliveira et al 2012;Lim et al 2016;Sukhal et al 2017; M. Jones 2016;Hedin et al 2016), this important issue has received limited attention in PeerJ reviewing PDF | (2018:02:23956:2:1:NEW 17 May 2018)…”

MedEdTrials: Protocol registration for medical education research

“…This paper argues for the creation of such a registration site and agreement by medical education journals as a matter of ethical necessity.Publication bias is the tendency of research studies with positive results to be more easily published than research studies with null or negative results. (Sterling, 1959;Hopewell et al, 2009;Joober et al, 2012;Hedin et al, 2016) Generally, academic journals favour studies with positive results, and researchers are also loath to publish research that has failed, especially embarrassingly so. Because of the lack of comparative unsuccessful studies on any intervention, readers and practitioners will infer an exaggerated and false level of viability of that intervention.…”

“…In medical research, publication bias is wide-spread and increasing. (Hopewell et al, 2009;Hedin et al, 2016;Mlinarić, Horvat and Smolčić, 2017) Masters K MedEdPublish…”