Assessment of publication bias in meta-analyses of cardiovascular diseases.
OBJECTIVE
To examine variables related with publication bias assessment in a sample of systematic reviews with meta-analysis on cardiovascular diseases.


METHODS
Systematic review of meta-analyses.


METHODS
Journals indexed in Medline and the Cochrane Library.


METHODS
225 reviews with meta-analysis published between 1990 and 2002.


METHODS
Data from meta-analyses were gathered according to a structured protocol. The outcome was the assessment, not the existence, of publication bias by the original authors.


RESULTS
Publication bias was assessed in 25 (11.1%) reviews, increasing with time: from 3.4% before 1998 to 19.0% in those published in 2002. A stepwise logistic regression model included several variables increasing the assessment of publication bias: number of primary studies (>7 compared with <or=7, odds ratio (OR)=5.40, 95% CI=1.36 to 21.44), number of searched databases (>or=4 compared with <3, OR=8.58, 95% CI=1.73 to 42.62), to be a meta-analysis on observational studies (OR=3.60, 95% CI=1.04 to 12.49), and year of publication (2002 compared with <2000, OR=5.73, 95% CI=1.16 to 28.36). In reviews published in the Cochrane Library publication bias was less frequently assessed (OR=0.06, 95% CI=0.01 to 0.69).


CONCLUSIONS
The frequency of assessment of publication bias in meta-analysis is still very low, although it has improved with time. It is more frequent in meta-analyses on observational studies and it is related to other methodological characteristics of reviews.
Palma
Silvia
S
Division of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Jaen, 23071-Jaen, Spain.
Delgado-Rodriguez
Miguel
M
D015706:Bibliometrics; D002318:Cardiovascular Diseases / Q000628:therapy*; D016206:Databases, Bibliographic; D006801:Humans; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D010506:Periodicals as Topic; D017594:Publication Bias; D012196:Review Literature as Topic