Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.

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

Hahn, Seokyung, Williamson, Paula R., Hutton, Jane L., Garner, Paul, Flynn, E. Victor·2000·Statistics in Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1002/1097-0258(20001230)19:24<3325::aid-sim827>3.0.co;2-d

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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.