Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Evidence-based practice: how to evaluate what you read.

K Ranga Rama Krishnan1

  • 1Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA. krish001@mc.duke.edu

Psychopharmacology Bulletin
|May 8, 2004
PubMed
Summary

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can be biased by study selection. Common biases include unpublished, non-English, and non-indexed articles, impacting overall research findings.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Brain-computer-interface-based intervention increases brain functional segregation in cognitively normal older adults.

Age and ageing·2025
Same author

The Singapore Health Services and Duke University-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School Academic Medical Center: Transforming Medicine Through Collaborative Innovation.

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges·2025
Same author

How Academic Health Systems Can Be Ready for the Next Pandemic.

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges·2021
Same author

How Does Electroconvulsive Therapy Work?

Biological psychiatry·2016
Same author

A pilot randomized controlled trial using EEG-based brain-computer interface training for a Chinese-speaking group of healthy elderly.

Clinical interventions in aging·2015
Same author

Proceedings of the 2013 CINP summit: innovative partnerships to accelerate CNS drug discovery for improved patient care.

The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology·2014

Area of Science:

  • Medical Research Methodology
  • Evidence Synthesis
  • Biostatistics

Background:

  • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are crucial for synthesizing research evidence.
  • The validity of these reviews depends heavily on the included studies.
  • Several common biases can affect the selection and interpretation of studies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review the potential significance of biases in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
  • To highlight common sources of bias that impact evidence synthesis.
  • To discuss the differential impact of study quality and comparability.

Main Methods:

  • Literature review of common biases in systematic reviews.
  • Analysis of exclusion criteria and their potential impact.
  • Discussion of publication bias, language bias, and indexing bias.
  • Examination of heterogeneity and comparability issues.

Main Results:

  • Exclusion of unpublished data, non-English publications, and non-indexed articles are significant biases.
  • Study quality and comparability introduce differential impacts on review outcomes.
  • These biases can lead to skewed or incomplete conclusions in meta-analyses.

Conclusions:

  • Awareness and mitigation of biases are essential for robust systematic reviews.
  • Careful consideration of study selection criteria is paramount.
  • Addressing these biases improves the reliability and generalizability of synthesized evidence.

Related Experiment Videos