CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 427Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Publication and related biases.

Open access
Song, Eastwood, Gilbody, Duley, Sutton·2000·Health Technology Assessment
DOI 10.3310/hta4100
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

NHS R&D HTA ProgrammeT he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS.Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources.The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment.Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects.These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA).This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care.It was identified as a priority by the Methodology Group and funded as project number 95/12/01.The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health.The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein.In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee.This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3310/hta4100

Cites

222 of 222 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:597-9.
  2. Dickersin K. Confusion about "negative" studies [Letter]. N Engl J Med 1990;322:1084.
  3. Smith R. What is publication [Editorial]? BMJ 1999;318:142.
  4. Rosenthal R. Publication bias, retrieval bias and pipeline effects. Discussion of the paper by Begg and Berlin. J R Stat Soc A 1988;151:419-63.
  5. Ben-Shlomo Y, Davey-Smith G. "Place of publication" bias [Letter]? BMJ 1994;309:274.
  6. Sohn D. Publications bias and the evaluation of psychotherapy efficacy in reviews of the research literature. Clin Psychol Rev 1996;16:147-56.
  7. Bozarth JD, Roberts RR. Signifiying significant significance. Am Psychol 1972;27:774-5.
  8. Moscati R, Jehle D, Ellis D, Fiorello A, Landi M. Positive-outcome bias: comparison of emergency medicine and general medicine literatures. Acad Emerg Med 1994;1:267-71. References
  9. McPherson K. Discussion of the paper by Begg and Berlin: Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. J R Stat Soc A 1988;151:445-7.
  10. Egger M, Davey-Smith G. Misleading meta-analysis: lessons from "an effective, safe, simple" intervention that wasn't. BMJ 1995;310:752-4.
  11. Rotton J, Foos PW, Vanmeek L, Levitt M. Publication practices and the file drawer problem - a survey of published authors. J Soc Behav Pers 1995;10:1-13.
  12. Rothwell PM, Robertson G. Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 1997; 350:1181-2.
  13. Devine EC. Empirical assessment of publication bias: lessons from two meta-analyses [Abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 7th Cochrane Colloquium; 1999 Oct 5-9; Rome. Rome: Universitás Tommaso D'Aquino, 1999:60.
  14. MacLean CH, Morton SC, Straus WL, Ofman J, Roth E, Shekelle PG. Unpublished data from United States Food and Drug Administration New Drug Application Reviews: how do they compare to published data when assessing nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) associated dyspepsia [Abstract]? In: Proceedings of the 7th Cochrane Colloquium; 1999 Oct 5-9; Rome. Rome: Universitás Tommaso D'Aquino, 1999:42.
  15. McAuley L, Moher D, Pham B, Tugwell P. Evaluation of the impact of grey literature on meta-analysis [Abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 7th Cochrane Colloquium; 1999 Oct 5-9; Rome. Rome: Universitás Tommaso D'Aquino, 1999:17.
  16. Loep M, Kleijnen J. Full publication of abstracts initially published in the Netherlands Journal of Medicine. Unpublished manuscript, 1999.
  17. Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C, Young G. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting. Why investigators fail to publish. JAMA 1998;280:257-9.
  18. Dudley HAF. Surgical research: master of servant. Am J Surg 1978;135:458-60.
  19. Gavazza JB, Foulkes GD, Meals RA. Publication pattern of papers presented at the American Society for Surgery of the Hand annual. J Hand Surg Am 1996;21:742-5.
  20. Ohlsson A, Walia R. Differences between information provided in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in neonates submitted to the annual meeting of the American Pediatric Society and the Society for Pediatric Research (APS/SPR) and final publications -implications for meta- analyses [Abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 7th Cochrane Colloquium; 1999 Oct 5-9; Rome. Rome: Universitás Tommaso D'Aquino, 1999:19.
  21. West RR, Jones DA. Publication bias in statistical overview of trials: example of psychological rehabilitation following myocardial infarction [Abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Scientific Basis of Health Services and 5th Annual Cochrane Colloquium; 1997 Oct 8-12; Amsterdam, 82.
  22. Notice of duplicate publication [Editorial]. JAMA 1985;254:3423.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Song, Eastwood, Gilbody, Duley, & Sutton
Affiliations
  • University of York (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Health Technology Assessment
Publisher
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Published
2000
Volume
4
Issue
10
ISSN
  • 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
  • 2046-4924
DOI
10.3310/hta4100
OpenAlex
W2582931416
Cited by
427
References
222
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 17
FWCI
15.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/non-commercial-government-licence/non-commercial-government-licence.htm (unspecified)
Locations
  • Health Technology Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Health Technology Assessment Programme (94/33/18)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
publication bias, reporting bias, systematic reviews, research priorities, screening, primary and community care

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