The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Assessing the potential for bias in meta-analysis due to selective reporting of subgroup analyses within studies
Abstract
Evidence regarding the potential benefits of a particular health care intervention is often available from a variety of disparate sources. However, formal synthesis of such evidence has traditionally concentrated almost exclusively on that derived from randomized studies, although for a range of conditions the randomized evidence will be less than adequate due to economic, organizational or ethical considerations. In such situations a formal synthesis of the evidence that is available from observational studies can be valuable whilst awaiting higher quality evidence from randomized trials. Consideration of randomized studies alone may be appropriate when assessing the efficacy of an intervention, but assessment of the effectiveness of such an intervention within a more general target population may be improved by consideration of evidence from non-randomized studies as well. Standard meta-analysis methods may allow for both within- and between-study heterogeneity; however when multiple sources of evidence are considered an extra level of complexity is introduced, namely study type. One possible solution to the problem of making inferences, particularly regarding an overall population effect, in such situations is to model the heterogeneity, both quantitative and qualitative, using a Bayesian hierarchical model. The hierarchical nature of such models specifically allows for the quantitative within and between sources of heterogeneity, whilst the Bayesian approach can accommodate a priori beliefs regarding qualitative differences between the various sources of evidence. The use of such methods in practice is illustrated in the context of screening for breast cancer; in this example evidence is available from both randomized clinical trials and observational studies. A particular appeal of a Bayesian approach for this type of problem lies in the prediction of future benefits likely to be observed in a target population. This approach to health service monitoring in general is discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Therefore, studies without protocol registration may present distorted data (Chan et al. 2013; Hahn et al. 2000).”
From Adherence to the CONSORT statement of randomized clinical trials on dentin hypersensitivity treatment using mouthwashes (2025) · cites this paper as Hahn et al. 2000
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Metadata
- Authors
- Hahn, S., Williamson, P. R., Hutton, J. L., Garner, P., & Flynn, E. V.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Published
- 2000
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing the potential for bias in meta-analysis due to selective reporting of subgroup analyses within studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/1097-0258(20001230)19:24
- The paper
- Hahn, S., Williamson, P. R., Hutton, J. L., Garner, P., & Flynn, E. V. (2000). Assessing the potential for bias in meta-analysis due to selective reporting of subgroup analyses within studies. Statistics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258(20001230)19%3A24
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.