Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Protocol

A protocol for a systematic review on the impact of unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature in meta-analyses

Authors: Christine Schmucker, Annette Bluemle, Matthias Briel, Susan Portalupi, Britta Lang, Edith Motschall, Guido Schwarzer, Dirk Bassler, Katharina F Mueller, Erik von Elm, Joerg J Meerpohl

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Meta-analyses are particularly vulnerable to the effects of publication bias. Despite methodologists’ best efforts to locate all evidence for a given topic the most comprehensive searches are likely to miss unpublished studies and studies that are published in the gray literature only. If the results of the missing studies differ systematically from the published ones, a meta-analysis will be biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention’s effects.
As part of the OPEN project (http://​www.​open-project.​eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:
  • ▪ To assess the impact of studies that are not published or published in the gray literature on pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses (quantitative measure).
  • ▪ To assess whether the inclusion of unpublished studies or studies published in the gray literature leads to different conclusions in meta-analyses (qualitative measure).

Methods/Design

Inclusion criteria: Methodological research projects of a cohort of meta-analyses which compare the effect of the inclusion or exclusion of unpublished studies or studies published in the gray literature.
Literature search: To identify relevant research projects we will conduct electronic searches in Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library; check reference lists; and contact experts.
Outcomes: 1) The extent to which the effect estimate in a meta-analyses changes with the inclusion or exclusion of studies that were not published or published in the gray literature; and 2) the extent to which the inclusion of unpublished studies impacts the meta-analyses’ conclusions.
Data collection: Information will be collected on the area of health care; the number of meta-analyses included in the methodological research project; the number of studies included in the meta-analyses; the number of study participants; the number and type of unpublished studies; studies published in the gray literature and published studies; the sources used to retrieve studies that are unpublished, published in the gray literature, or commercially published; and the validity of the methodological research project.
Data synthesis: Data synthesis will involve descriptive and statistical summaries of the findings of the included methodological research projects.

Discussion

Results are expected to be publicly available in the middle of 2013.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Center f or Reviews and Dissemination: Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. 2001, York: University of York Center f or Reviews and Dissemination: Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD’s guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews. 2001, York: University of York
3.
go back to reference Song F, Eastwood A, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ: Publication and related bias. Health Technol Assess. 2000, 4: 1e115- Song F, Eastwood A, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ: Publication and related bias. Health Technol Assess. 2000, 4: 1e115-
4.
go back to reference McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D: Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analysis. Lancet. 2000, 356: 1228-1231. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02786-0.CrossRefPubMed McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D: Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analysis. Lancet. 2000, 356: 1228-1231. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02786-0.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Harbord RM, Schmid CH, Tetzlaff J, Deeks JJ, Peters J, Macaskill P, Schwarzer G, Duval S, Altman DG, Moher D, Higgins JP: Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011, 343: d4002-10.1136/bmj.d4002.CrossRefPubMed Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, Carpenter J, Rucker G, Harbord RM, Schmid CH, Tetzlaff J, Deeks JJ, Peters J, Macaskill P, Schwarzer G, Duval S, Altman DG, Moher D, Higgins JP: Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011, 343: d4002-10.1136/bmj.d4002.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M, Egger M: Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, 2: MR000010-PubMed Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M, Egger M: Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, 2: MR000010-PubMed
7.
go back to reference Cook D, Guyatt GH, Ryan G: Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA. 1993, 269: 2749-2753. 10.1001/jama.1993.03500210049030.CrossRefPubMed Cook D, Guyatt GH, Ryan G: Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA. 1993, 269: 2749-2753. 10.1001/jama.1993.03500210049030.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Portalupi S, von Elm E, Schmucker C, Lang B, Motschall E, Schwarzer G, Gross IT, Scherer RW, Bassler D, Meerpohl JJ: Protocol for a systematic review on the extent of non-publication of research studies and associated study characteristics. Systematic Reviews. 2013, 2: 2-10.1186/2046-4053-2-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Portalupi S, von Elm E, Schmucker C, Lang B, Motschall E, Schwarzer G, Gross IT, Scherer RW, Bassler D, Meerpohl JJ: Protocol for a systematic review on the extent of non-publication of research studies and associated study characteristics. Systematic Reviews. 2013, 2: 2-10.1186/2046-4053-2-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
A protocol for a systematic review on the impact of unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature in meta-analyses
Authors
Christine Schmucker
Annette Bluemle
Matthias Briel
Susan Portalupi
Britta Lang
Edith Motschall
Guido Schwarzer
Dirk Bassler
Katharina F Mueller
Erik von Elm
Joerg J Meerpohl
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-24

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Systematic Reviews 1/2013 Go to the issue