Application and investigation of a bound for outcome reporting bias.

Williamson, Paula R ORCID: 0000-0001-9802-6636 and Gamble, Carrol ORCID: 0000-0002-3021-1955 (2007) Application and investigation of a bound for outcome reporting bias. Trials, 8 (1). 9-.

PDF 721.pdf - Unspecified Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (569kB)

Abstract

<h4>Background</h4>Direct empirical evidence for the existence of outcome reporting bias is accumulating and this source of bias is recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.<h4>Methods</h4>A method for calculating the maximum bias in a meta-analysis due to publication bias is adapted for the setting where within-study selective non-reporting of outcomes is suspected, and compared to the alternative approach of missing data imputation. The properties of both methods are investigated in realistic small sample situations.<h4>Results</h4>The results suggest that the adapted Copas and Jackson approach is the preferred method for reviewers to apply as an initial assessment of robustness to within-study selective non-reporting.<h4>Conclusion</h4>The Copas and Jackson approach is a useful method for systematic reviewers to apply to assess robustness to outcome reporting bias.

Item Type:	Article
Additional Information:	Published: 6 March 2007. Issue: 12 pages (page numbers not for citation purposes).
Uncontrolled Keywords:	PUBLICATION BIAS, RANDOMIZED-TRIALS, SELECTION BIAS, METAANALYSIS
Subjects:	?? R1 ??
Divisions:	Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
Depositing User:	Symplectic Admin
Date Deposited:	27 Jun 2008 13:21
Last Modified:	17 Dec 2022 00:25
DOI:	10.1186/1745-6215-8-9
Publisher's Statement :	© 2007 Williamson and Gamble; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Related URLs:	Author Publisher
URI:	https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/id/eprint/721