Cited by 1,819Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias

Guyatt, Gordon H., Oxman, Andrew D., Montori, Victor, Vist, Gunn, Kunz, Regina, Brozek, Jan, Alonso-Coello, Pablo, Djulbegovic, Ben +7 more·2011·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

In the GRADE approach, randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational studies as low-quality evidence, but both can be rated down if a body of evidence is associated with a high risk of publication bias. Even when individual studies included in best-evidence summaries have a low risk of bias, publication bias can result in substantial overestimates of effect. Authors should suspect publication bias when available evidence comes from a number of small studies, most of which have been commercially funded. A number of approaches based on examination of the pattern of data are available to help assess publication bias. The most popular of these is the funnel plot; all, however, have substantial limitations. Publication bias is likely frequent, and caution in the face of early results, particularly with small sample size and number of events, is warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.011

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Montori, V., Vist, G., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Djulbegovic, B., Atkins, D., Falck-Ytter, Y., Williams, J. W., Meerpohl, J., Norris, S. L., Akl, E. A., & Schünemann, H. J.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten (NO)
  • University Hospital of Basel (CH)
  • VA Office of Research and Development (US)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • University Medical Center Freiburg (DE)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-12
Volume
64
Issue
12
Pages
1277-1282
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2109346853
Cited by
1,819
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 75 · 2025: 142 · 2024: 153 · 2023: 144 · 2022: 172 · 2021: 180 · 2020: 196 · 2019: 120 · 2018: 122 · 2017: 123 · 2016: 109 · 2015: 109 · 2014: 77 · 2013: 51 · 2012: 40
FWCI
57.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
publication bias, GRADE, quality of evidence, funnel plot, small-study effects, commercial funding, risk of bias
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Drug Industry, Review Literature as Topic, Statistics as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Publication Bias, Evidence-Based Medicine

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