Williamson, Paula R. and Gamble, Carrol (2007) Application and investigation of a bound for outcome reporting bias. Trials, 8 . Article Number: 9. ISSN 1745-6215
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Cited 5 times in WoS
Background: 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 metaanalysis of randomised clinical trials. Methods: 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. Results: 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 nonreporting. Conclusion: The Copas and Jackson approach is a useful method for systematic reviewers to apply to assess robustness to outcome reporting bias.
|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 Issue: 12 pages (page numbers not for citation purposes).|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:||R Medicine > R Medicine (General)|
|Departments, Research Centres and Related Units:||Academic Faculties, Institutes and Research Centres > Research Centres > Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, Centre for|
|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.|
|Deposited On:||27 Jun 2008 14:21|
|Last Modified:||05 Mar 2012 15:52|
Repository Staff Only: item control page