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

Adjusting for publication bias: modelling the selection process.

Carrol Preston1, Deborah Ashby, Rosalind Smyth

  • 1Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, University of Liverpool, UK. c.preston@liverpool.ac.uk

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
|June 11, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

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

Pandemic risk-related behaviour change in England from June 2020 to March 2022: the cross-sectional REACT-1 study among over 2 million people.

BMJ public health·2025
Same author

CONSORT-DEFINE explanation and elaboration: recommendations for enhancing reporting quality and impact of early phase dose-finding clinical trials.

EClinicalMedicine·2025
Same author

SPIRIT-DEFINE explanation and elaboration: recommendations for enhancing quality and impact of early phase dose-finding clinical trials protocols.

EClinicalMedicine·2025
Same author

Strategies to Increase Response Rate and Reduce Nonresponse Bias in Population Health Research: Analysis of a Series of Randomized Controlled Experiments during a Large COVID-19 Study.

JMIR public health and surveillance·2025
Same author

Quantifying the benefit-risk trade-off for individual patients in a clinical trial: principles and antithrombotic case study.

Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis : JTH·2024
Same author

Enhancing quality and impact of early phase dose-finding clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT Dose-finding Extension (SPIRIT-DEFINE) guidance.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2023
Same journal

Evaluating Restraint and Seclusion as Care Processes Rather Than Compliance Metrics.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026
Same journal

Burden in Informal Caregivers of Palliative Care Patients With Pressure Injuries: Perceived Social Support and Influencing Factors Care Burden in Palliative Caregivers.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026
Same journal

Organisational Problems, Role Stress, and Job Satisfaction Among Emergency Department Workers: A Multicenter Mixed-Effects Study.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026
Same journal

Highlighting a Systemic Bias in the Responder Odds Ratio.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026
Same journal

Epistemological Issues in Clinical Reasoning: A Scoping Review.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026
Same journal

An Evaluation of AI-Generated Clinical Notes in the OpenNotes Era: A Thematic Analysis of Clinician Discourse.

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2026
See all related articles

Publication bias threatens medical decisions derived from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This study explores weighted distribution methods to assess and improve the robustness of combined estimates against such biases.

Area of Science:

  • Medical research methodology
  • Biostatistics
  • Evidence-based medicine

Background:

  • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are increasingly used in medical decision-making.
  • Publication bias, where published research is not representative of all research, poses a significant threat to the validity of these reviews.
  • Existing models for addressing publication bias are limited, despite extensive research on its risk factors.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare and apply methods that adjust meta-analytic estimates for publication bias.
  • To develop and further explore models of the selection process within a weighted distributions framework.
  • To enhance the reliability of systematic review findings in the face of potential publication bias.

Main Methods:

  • Comparison of statistical methods designed to adjust for publication bias.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Application of these methods to a systematic review on oral rehydration solution for dehydration.
  • Development of weighted distribution models to represent and analyze the research selection process.

    • Main Results:

    • Weighted distribution models provide a flexible framework for adjusting meta-analytic estimates.
    • These models can incorporate additional factors by modifying the selection function.
    • The study demonstrates the application of these methods to a real-world systematic review.

    Conclusions:

    • Weighted distributions offer a adaptable approach to account for publication bias in meta-analyses.
    • Methods adjusting for bias should be used to evaluate the robustness of findings, not as a sole definitive answer.
    • This approach aids in more reliable interpretation of systematic review results in medical practice and policy.