Approaches to Assessing and Adjusting for Selective Outcome Reporting in Meta-analysis
- PMID: 34669145
- PMCID: PMC8971211
- DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-07135-3
Approaches to Assessing and Adjusting for Selective Outcome Reporting in Meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: Selective or non-reporting of study outcomes results in outcome reporting bias.
Objective: We sought to develop and assess tools for detecting and adjusting for outcome reporting bias.
Design: Using data from a previously published systematic review, we abstracted whether outcomes were reported as collected, whether outcomes were statistically significant, and whether statistically significant outcomes were more likely to be reported. We proposed and tested a model to adjust for unreported outcomes and compared our model to three other methods (Copas, Frosi, trim and fill). Our approach assumes that unreported outcomes had a null intervention effect with variance imputed based on the published outcomes. We further compared our approach to these models using simulation, and by varying levels of missing data and study sizes.
Results: There were 286 outcomes reported as collected from 47 included trials: 142 (48%) had the data provided and 144 (52%) did not. Reported outcomes were more likely to be statistically significant than those collected but for which data were unreported and for which non-significance was reported (RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.9 to 3.0). Our model and the Copas model provided similar decreases in the pooled effect sizes in both the meta-analytic data and simulation studies. The Frosi and trim and fill methods performed poorly.
Limitations: Single intervention of a single disease with only randomized controlled trials; approach may overestimate outcome reporting bias impact.
Conclusion: There was evidence of selective outcome reporting. Statistically significant outcomes were more likely to be published than non-significant ones. Our simple approach provided a quick estimate of the impact of unreported outcomes on the estimated effect. This approach could be used as a quick assessment of the potential impact of unreported outcomes.
Keywords: Meta-analysis; Outcome reporting bias; Statistical adjustment.
© 2021. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
Similar articles
-
Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Oct 1;2014(10):MR000035. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014. PMID: 25271098 Free PMC article.
-
The trim-and-fill method for publication bias: practical guidelines and recommendations based on a large database of meta-analyses.Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Jun;98(23):e15987. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000015987. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019. PMID: 31169736 Free PMC article.
-
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.JAMA. 2004 May 26;291(20):2457-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457. JAMA. 2004. PMID: 15161896
-
Meta-analytic Techniques to Assess the Association Between N-acetylcysteine and Acute Kidney Injury After Contrast Administration: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Jul 1;5(7):e2220671. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.20671. JAMA Netw Open. 2022. PMID: 35788669 Free PMC article.
-
Has the degree of outcome reporting bias in surgical randomized trials changed? A meta-regression analysis.ANZ J Surg. 2023 Jan;93(1-2):76-82. doi: 10.1111/ans.18273. Epub 2023 Jan 18. ANZ J Surg. 2023. PMID: 36655339 Review.
References
-
- Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Publication bias in meta-analysis. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources