Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:42:21.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is grey literature essential for a better control of publication bias in psychiatry? An example from three meta-analyses of schizophrenia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

José Luis R. Martin ,
Víctor Pérez ,
Montse Sacristán  and
Enric Álvarez
José Luis R. Martin*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Research, Foundation for Health Research in Castilla-La Mancha (FISCAM), Edificio Bulevar, C/Berna, No. 2, Local 0-2, 45003– Toledo, Castilla-La Mancha, Spain
Víctor Pérez
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
Montse Sacristán
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Research, Foundation for Health Research in Castilla-La Mancha (FISCAM), Edificio Bulevar, C/Berna, No. 2, Local 0-2, 45003– Toledo, Castilla-La Mancha, Spain
Enric Álvarez
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain
*
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 92 528 1143; fax: +34 92 528 1149. E-mail address:jlrmartin@jccm.es. (J.L.R. Martin).
Get access

Abstract

Systematic reviews in mental health have become useful tools for health professionals in view of the massive amount and heterogeneous nature of biomedical information available today. In order to determine the risk of bias in the studies evaluated and to avoid bias in generalizing conclusions from the reviews it is therefore important to use a very strict methodology in systematic reviews. One bias which may affect the generalization of results is publication bias, which is determined by the nature and direction of the study results. To control or minimize this type of bias, the authors of systematic reviews undertake comprehensive searches of medical databases and expand on the findings, often undertaking searches of grey literature (material which is not formally published). This paper attempts to show the consequences (and risk) of generalizing the implications of grey literature in the control of publication bias, as was proposed in a recent systematic work. By repeating the analyses for the same outcome from three different systematic reviews that included both published and grey literature our results showed that confusion between grey literature and publication bias may affect the results of a concrete meta-analysis.

Keywords

Grey literaturePublication biasSystematic reviewsSchizophrenia
Type
Short communication
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 20 , Issue 8 , December 2005 , pp. 550 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © Elsevier SAS 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Clarke, MOxman, ADCochrane Reviewers’ Handbook 4.2.0. The Cochrane Library, Issue 2 Oxford: Update Software. Update quarterly; 2003. [updated March 2003]Google Scholar
Cook, DJGuyatt, GHRyan, GShould unpublished data be included in meta-analysis?. J Am Med Assoc 1993;269:2749–2753.10.1001/jama.1993.03500210049030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Current Controlled Trials. MetaRegister of controlled clinical trials. http://www.controlled-trials.com.Google Scholar
Dickersin, KRennie, DRegistering clinical trials. J Am Med Assoc 2003;290:516–523.10.1001/jama.290.4.516CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duggan, LFenton, MDardennes, RMEl-Dosoky, AIndran, SOlanzapine for schizophrenia (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 Oxford: Update Software; 2004.Google Scholar
Egger, MMeta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies. Br Med J 1998;316:61–66.10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egger, MJüni, PBartlett, CHolenstein, FSterne, JHow important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol. Assess 2003;7(1):1–76.Google ScholarPubMed
Heres, SWagenpfeil, SHamann, JKissling, WLeucht, SLanguage bias in neuroscience- Is the tower of Babel located in Germany?. Eur. Psychiatry 2004;19:230–232.10.1016/j.eurpsy.2003.09.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopewell, SMcDonald, SClarke, MEgger, MGrey literature in meta-analysis of randomized trials of health care interventions (Cochrane Methodology Review). The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 Oxford: Update Software; 2003.Google Scholar
Hunter, RHJoy, CBKennedy, EGilbody, SMSong, FRisperidone versus typical antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 Oxford: Update Software; 2004.Google Scholar
Jakovljevic, MDossenbach, MRKOlanzapine versus fluphenazine in the acute (6-week) treatment of schizophrenia. Psychiatric Danubina 1999;11:3–10.Google Scholar
Jüni, PAltman, DGEgger, MAssessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. Br Med J 2001;323:42–46.10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moher, DCook, DJEastwood, SOlkin, IRennie, DStroup, DFet al.Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999;354:1896–1900.10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moher, DSchulz, KFAltman, DGfor the CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001;357:1191–1194.10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04337-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulrow, CDSystematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. Br Med J 1994;309:597–599.10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulz, KFRandomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelines. Lancet 1996;348: 596–598.10.1016/S0140-6736(96)01201-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulz, KFChalmers, IHayes, RJAltman, DGDimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 1995;273: 408–412.10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Srisurapanont, MDisayavanish, CTaimkaew, KQuetiapine for schizophrenia (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 Oxford: Update Software; 2004.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.