Association Between Publication Characteristics and Treatment Effect Estimates

Agnès Dechartres · Ignacio Atal · Carolina Riveros · Joerg J Meerpohl · Philippe Ravaud

60 citations0/0 files storedAnnals of Internal Medicine

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews scientometrics and bibliometrics research Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

Background: Evidence about the effect on meta-analysis results of including unpublished trials or those published in languages other than English is unclear or discordant. Purpose: To compare treatment effects between published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and between trials published in English and other languages using a meta-epidemiologic approach. Data Sources: Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and January 2017 and trial references cited in the reviews. Study Selection: RCTs included in meta-analyses of 3 or more trials with a binary efficacy outcome. Data Extraction: Trial characteristics were extracted by original review authors. A single reviewer assessed publication status and language, with quality assurance by another investigator. Data Synthesis: Among 5659 RCTs included in 698 meta-analyses, 5303 (93.7%) were published in journal articles and 356 (6.3%) were unpublished. Of journal articles, 92.6% (4910 of 5303) were published in English and 7.4% (393 of 5303) in another language. Treatment effects were larger in published than unpublished trials (combined ratio of odds ratios [ROR] for 174 meta-analyses, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.82 to 0.98]; I2 = 19.3%; τ2 = 0.0492). Treatment effects were also larger for trials published in a language other than English than in English (combined ROR for 147 meta-analyses, 0.86 [CI, 0.78 to 0.95]; I2 = 0%; τ2 = 0.0000). Limitation: Reliance on the primary reference cited by review authors as the record of interest. Conclusion: In meta-analyses, treatment effects were larger in published than unpublished trials and, for published trials, in those published in a language other than English than in English. Primary Funding Source: Cochrane France.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 60 citations exist upstream.

References

2003How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study 2013Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated Review 2012Influence of Reported Study Design Characteristics on Intervention Effect Estimates From Randomized, Controlled Trials 2010Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases 1997Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German 2007Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts 2009Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results 2007Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews

Cited by

2021Including non‐English language articles in systematic reviews: A reflection on processes for identifying low‐cost sources of translation support 2024An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review 2021Association Between Lack of Blinding and Mortality Results in Critical Care Randomized Controlled Trials: A Meta-Epidemiological Study*2019

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.