The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence—publication bias
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.
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
“Small-sample studies are generally more prone to bias, and the relatively large confidence intervals presented in these studies suggest high uncertainty around the point estimates [47, 48].”
From Depression, anxiety, PTSD, and OCD after stillbirth: a systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [48]
In the citing paper
“To assess the certainty of the findings’ body of evidence, we will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, which evaluates five pillars: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirect assessment of outcomes, and publication bias [35].”
From Dialectical Behavior Therapy as an intervention for Treatment Resistant Depression in adults: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [35]
In the citing paper
“The overall quality of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, considering study limitations, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias [40–44].”
In the citing paper
“Quality of evidence in included systematic reviews was assessed by outcome using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system criteria [17-27].”
From Effects of Home Telemonitoring Interventions on Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: An Overview of Systematic Reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“To determine the quality of evidence, the GRADE approach was used [29–36].”
In the citing paper
“RCTs are first categorised as high-quality evidence in the GRADE system, while observational studies are classified as low-quality data supporting estimates of intervention effects.”
Citations
Cites
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702
Publication bias in clinical research
Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., & Matthews, D. R. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y · Cited by 3,109 · cited 1×
“In these instances, reviewers may consider the risk of publication bias as substantial [46,47].”
BackgroundSelective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy
Turner, E. H., Matthews, A. M., Linardatos, E., Tell, R. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa065779 · Cited by 2,435
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 · Cited by 2,147 · cited 2×
“The inclination to rate down for publication bias should increase if most of those small studies are industry sponsored or likely to be industry sponsored (or if the investigators share another conflict of interest) [14,23,28].”
BackgroundPeters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010 · Cited by 2,053
The case of the misleading funnel plot
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., & Olkin, I. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597 · Cited by 1,766
Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses
Sutton, A. J. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7249.1574 · Cited by 1,398
meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies
Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61 · Cited by 1,374
Users' guides to the medical literature : a manual for evidence-based clinical practice
Guyatt, G. H., Rennie, D., Meade, M. O., & Cook, D. J. (2002) · Cited by 1,196
Self-citationThe Salmeterol Multicenter Asthma Research Trial
Nelson, H. S., Weiss, S. T., Bleecker, E. R., Yancey, S. W., & Dorinsky, P. (2006) · CHEST Journal · doi:10.1378/chest.129.1.15 · Cited by 1,112
Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German
Egger, M., Zellweger-Zähner, T., Schneider, M., Junker, C., Lengeler, C., & Antes, G. (1997) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)02419-7 · Cited by 1,028
Factors Influencing Publication of Research Results
Dickersin, K. (1992) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03480030052036 · Cited by 931
Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results
Hopewell, S., Loudon, K., Clarke, M. J., Oxman, A. D., & Dickersin, K. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000006.pub3 · Cited by 898
Self-citationDirection and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study
Jüni, P., Holenstein, F., Sterne, J., Bartlett, C., & Egger, M. (2002) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/31.1.115 · Cited by 892
Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects
Stern, J. M., & Simes, R. J. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.640 · Cited by 818
Publication bias—a problem in interpreting medical data
Begg, C. B., & Berlin, J. A. (1988) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.2307/2982993 · Cited by 814
Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables
Altman, D. G. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7306.224 · Cited by 756
Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study
Tramèr, M. R., Reynolds, D. J. M., Moore, R. A., & McQuay, H. J. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.635 · Cited by 702
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical
Stuck, A. E., Rubenstein, L. Z., Wieland, D., Vandenbroucke, J. P., Irwig, L., Macaskill, P., Berry, G., Glasziou, P., Seagroatt, V., Stratton, I., et al. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7129.469 · Cited by 699
Melander, H., Ahlqvist-Rastad, J., Meijer, G., & Beermann, B. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1171 · Cited by 634
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.279.4.281 · Cited by 632
Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions
Hopewell, S., McDonald, S., Clarke, M. J., & Egger, M. (2007) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000010.pub3 · Cited by 598 · cited 1×
“Negative studies may be published in some form (theses, book chapters, compendia of meeting abstract submissionsdsometimes referred to as ‘‘gray literature’’) that tend to be omitted from systematic reviews without comprehensive searching [11].”
BackgroundDeAngelis, C. D., Drazen, J. M., Frizelle, F., Haug, C. J., Hoey, J., Horton, R. C., Kotzin, S., Laine, C. M., Marušić, A., Overbeke, A. J. P. M., et al. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.292.11.1363 · Cited by 579
Terrin, N. C., Schmid, C. H., & Lau, J. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.006 · Cited by 502
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic removal of wisdom teeth.
Song, O'Meara, Wilson, P. M., Golder, S., & Kleijnen, J. (2000) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta4150 · Cited by 478
Publication and Related Biases
Song, F., Eastwood, A. J., Gilbody, S. M., Duley, L., & Sutton, A. J. (2001) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781848608344.n21 · Cited by 469
Publication Bias and Dissemination of Clinical Research
Begg, C. B., & Berlin, J. A. (1989) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/81.2.107 · Cited by 447
II. Meta-Analysis of Alendronate for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Women
Cranney, A., Wells, G., Willan, A. R., Griffith, L. E., Zytaruk, N. L., Robinson, V. A., Black, D. M., Adachi, J. D., Shea, B., Tugwell, P., et al. (2002) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/er.2001-2002 · Cited by 441
Self-citationPublication and related biases.
Song, Eastwood, Gilbody, Duley, & Sutton (2000) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta4100 · Cited by 427
A general linear model for estimating effect size in the presence of publication bias
Vevea, J. L., & Hedges, L. (1995) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02294384 · Cited by 367
Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice
Kleinbart, J., & Williams, M. V. (2002) · Evidence-Based Mental Health · doi:10.1136/ebmh.5.4.103 · Cited by 355
Large Trials vs Meta-analysis of Smaller Trials: How Do Their Results Compare?
Cappelleri, J. C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540160054033 · Cited by 336
Rising, K., Bacchetti, P., & Bero, L. (2008) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217 · Cited by 328
Clinical Trial Registration — Looking Back and Moving Ahead
Laine, C. M., Horton, R. C., DeAngelis, C. D., Drazen, J. M., Frizelle, F., Godlee, F., Haug, C. J., Hébert, P. C., Kotzin, S., Marušić, A., et al. (2007) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejme078110 · Cited by 320
Different Patterns of Duplicate Publication: An Analysis of Articles Used in Systematic Reviews
von Elm, E., Poglia, G., Walder, B., & Tramèr, M. R. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.8.974 · Cited by 290
Time to publication for results of clinical trials
Hopewell, S., Clarke, M. J., Stewart, L., & Tierney, J. (2007) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000011.pub2 · Cited by 243
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Graphical test is itself biased.
Irwig, L., Macaskill, P., Berry, G., & Glasziou, P. (1998) · PubMed Central · Cited by 240
Hedges, L., & Vevea, J. L. (1996) · Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986021004299 · Cited by 223
Dickersin, K. (1992) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.267.3.374 · Cited by 193
Local Literature Bias in Genetic Epidemiology: An Empirical Evaluation of the Chinese Literature
Pan, Z., Trikalinos, T. A., Kavvoura, F. K., Lau, J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020334 · Cited by 170
Meta-analysis of flavonoids for the treatment of haemorrhoids
Alonso‐Coello, P., Zhou, Q. X., Martínez‐Zapata, M. J., Mills, E. J., Heels‐Ansdell, D., Johanson, J. F., & Guyatt, G. H. (2006) · British journal of surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.5378 · Cited by 168
Self-citationFair Conduct and Fair Reporting of Clinical Trials
Rennie, D. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.18.1766 · Cited by 149
Quinine for nocturnal leg cramps
Man‐Son‐Hing, M., Wells, G. A., & Lau, A. (1998) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00182.x · Cited by 115
WHO facilitates international collaboration in setting standards for clinical trial registration
Gülmezoglu, A. M., Pang, T., Horton, R. C., & Dickersin, K. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66589-0 · Cited by 104
Recursive Cumulative Meta-analysis
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Contopoulos‐Ioannidis, D. G., & Lau, J. (1999) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00159-0 · Cited by 84
Vaitkus, P., & Brar, C. (2007) · American Heart Journal · doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2006.09.014 · Cited by 72
Bias in reporting clinical trials.
Bardy, A. (1998) · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2125.1998.00759.x · Cited by 70
Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare?
Cappelleri, J. C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.276.16.1332 · Cited by 60
Misleading data analyses in salmeterol (SMART) study
Lurie, P. G., & Wolfe, S. M. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67518-6 · Cited by 33
Controversies Surround Heart Drug Study
Mitka, M. (2008) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.299.8.885 · Cited by 25
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Seagroatt, 1998, Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Test had 10% positive rate, BMJ, 316, 470
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & the PRISMA-P Group (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647 · Cited by 13,120
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence
Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., Meerpohl, J., & Norris, S. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015 · Cited by 8,285
Self-citationAntithrombotic Therapy for VTE Disease
Kearon, C., Akl, E. A., Ornelas, J., Blaivas, A., Jimenez, D., Bounameaux, H., Huisman, M., King, C. S., Morris, T. A., Sood, N., et al. (2016) · Chest · doi:10.1016/j.chest.2015.11.026 · Cited by 4,830
Self-citationJapanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum, Watanabe, T., Muro, K., Ajioka, Y., Hashiguchi, Y., Ito, Y., Saito, Y., Hamaguchi, T., Ishida, H., Ishiguro, M., et al. (2018) · International Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1007/s10147-017-1101-6 · Cited by 2,467
Hashiguchi, Y., Muro, K., Saitō, Y., Ito, Y., Ajioka, Y., Hamaguchi, T., Hasegawa, K., Hotta, K., Ishida, H., Ishiguro, M., et al. (2019) · International Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1007/s10147-019-01485-z · Cited by 1,950
Metadata
- 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)
- ORCID
- 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
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › 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
