Lag times in the publication of network meta-analyses: a survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
We assessed the extent of lag times in the publication and indexing of network meta-analyses (NMAs).Study design
This was a survey of published NMAs on drug interventions.Setting
NMAs indexed in PubMed (searches updated in May 2020).Primary and secondary outcome measures
Lag times were measured as the time between the last systematic search and the article submission, acceptance, online publication, indexing and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) allocation dates. Time-to-event analyses were performed considering independent variables (geographical origin, Journal Impact Factor, Scopus CiteScore, open access status) (SPSS V.24, R/RStudio).Results
We included 1245 NMAs. The median time from last search to article submission was 6.8 months (204 days (IQR 95-381)), and to publication was 11.6 months. Only 5% of authors updated their search after first submission. There is a very slightly decreasing historical trend of acceptance (rho=-0.087; p=0.010), online publication (rho=-0.080; p=0.008) and indexing (rho=-0.080; p=0.007) lag times. Journal Impact Factor influenced the MeSH allocation process, but not the other lag times. The comparison between open access versus subscription journals confirmed meaningless differences in acceptance, online publication and indexing lag times.Conclusion
Efforts by authors to update their search before submission are needed to reduce evidence production time. Peer reviewers and editors should ensure authors' compliance with NMA standards. The accuracy of these findings depends on the accuracy of the metadata used; as we evaluated only NMA on drug interventions, results may not be generalisable to all types of studies.
SUBMITTER: Tonin FS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8422315 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionPositive results have a greater chance of being published and outcomes that are statistically significant have a greater chance of being fully reported. One consequence of research underreporting is that it may influence the sample of studies that is available for a meta-analysis. Smaller studies are often characterized by larger effects in published meta-analyses, which can be possibly explained by publication bias. We investigated the association between the statistical significance of the results and the probability of being included in recent meta-analyses.MethodsFor meta-analyses of clinical trials, we defined the relative risk as the ratio of the probability of including statistically significant results favoring the treatment to the probability of including other results. For meta-analyses of other studies, we defined the relative risk as the ratio of the probability of including biologically plausible statistically significant results to the probability of including other results. We applied a Bayesian selection model for meta-analyses that included at least 30 studies and were published in four major general medical journals (BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, and PLOS Medicine) between 2008 and 2012.ResultsWe identified 49 meta-analyses. The estimate of the relative risk was greater than one in 42 meta-analyses, greater than two in 16 meta-analyses, greater than three in eight meta-analyses, and greater than five in four meta-analyses. In 10 out of 28 meta-analyses of clinical trials, there was strong evidence that statistically significant results favoring the treatment were more likely to be included. In 4 out of 19 meta-analyses of observational studies, there was strong evidence that plausible statistically significant outcomes had a higher probability of being included.ConclusionsPublication bias was present in a substantial proportion of large meta-analyses that were recently published in four major medical journals.
| S-EPMC3868709 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to assure high methodological standards, systematic reviews may be affected by publication bias. The objective of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of publication bias in a collection of high quality systematic reviews on reproductive health. METHODS: Systematic reviews included in the Reproductive Health Library (RHL), issue No 9, were assessed. Funnel plot was used to assess meta-analyses containing 10 or more trials reporting a binary outcome. A funnel plot, the estimated number of missing studies and the adjusted combined effect size were obtained using the "trim and fill method". Meta-analyses results that were not considered to be robust due to a possible publication bias were submitted to a more detailed assessment. RESULTS: A total of 21 systematic reviews were assessed. The number of trials comprising each one ranged from 10 to 83 (median = 13), totaling 379 trials, whose results have been summarized. None of the reviews had reported any evaluation of publication bias or funnel plot asymmetry. Some degree of asymmetry in funnel plots was observed in 18 of the 21 meta-analyses evaluated (85.7%), with the estimated number of missing studies ranging from 1 to 18 (median = 3). Only for three meta-analyses, the conclusion could not be considered robust due to a possible publication bias. CONCLUSION: Asymmetry is a frequent finding in funnel plots of meta-analyses in reproductive health, but according to the present evaluation, less than 15% of meta-analyses report conclusions that would not be considered robust. Publication bias and other sources of asymmetry in funnel plots should be systematically addressed by reproductive health meta-analysts. Next amendments in Cochrane systematic reviews should include this type of evaluation. Further studies regarding the evolution of effect size and publication bias over time in systematic reviews in reproductive health are needed.
| S-EPMC1855315 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We propose sensitivity analyses for publication bias in meta-analyses. We consider a publication process such that 'statistically significant' results are more likely to be published than negative or "non-significant" results by an unknown ratio, η. Our proposed methods also accommodate some plausible forms of selection based on a study's standard error. Using inverse probability weighting and robust estimation that accommodates non-normal population effects, small meta-analyses, and clustering, we develop sensitivity analyses that enable statements such as 'For publication bias to shift the observed point estimate to the null, "significant" results would need to be at least 30 fold more likely to be published than negative or "non-significant" results'. Comparable statements can be made regarding shifting to a chosen non-null value or shifting the confidence interval. To aid interpretation, we describe empirical benchmarks for plausible values of η across disciplines. We show that a worst-case meta-analytic point estimate for maximal publication bias under the selection model can be obtained simply by conducting a standard meta-analysis of only the negative and 'non-significant' studies; this method sometimes indicates that no amount of such publication bias could 'explain away' the results. We illustrate the proposed methods by using real meta-analyses and provide an R package: PublicationBias.
| S-EPMC7590147 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether the exclusion of individual treatment comparators, including placebo/no treatment, affects the results of network meta-analysis.DesignSurvey of networks with individual trial data.Data sourcesPubMed and communication with authors of network meta-analyses.Study selection and methodsWe included networks that had five or more treatments, contained at least two closed loops, had at least twice as many studies as treatments, and had trial level data available. Investigators abstracted information about study design, participants, outcomes, network geometry, and the exclusion of eligible treatments.ResultsAmong 18 eligible networks involving 757 randomised controlled trials with 750 possible treatment comparisons, 11 had upfront decided not to consider all treatment comparators and only 10 included placebo/no treatment nodes. In 7/18 networks, there was at least one node whose removal caused a more than 1.10-fold average relative change in the estimated treatments effects, and switches in the top three treatments were observed in 9/18 networks. Removal of placebo/no treatment caused large relative changes of the treatment effects (average change 1.16-3.10-fold) for four of the 10 networks that had originally included placebo/no treatment nodes. Exclusion of current uncommonly used drugs resulted in substantial changes of the treatment effects (average 1.21-fold) in one of three networks on systemic treatments for advanced malignancies.ConclusionExcluding treatments in network meta-analyses sometimes can have important effects on their results and can diminish the usefulness of the research to clinicians if important comparisons are missing.
| S-EPMC3763846 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Publication bias is a substantial problem for the credibility of research in general and of meta-analyses in particular, as it yields overestimated effects and may suggest the existence of non-existing effects. Although there is consensus that publication bias exists, how strongly it affects different scientific literatures is currently less well-known. We examined evidence of publication bias in a large-scale data set of primary studies that were included in 83 meta-analyses published in Psychological Bulletin (representing meta-analyses from psychology) and 499 systematic reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR; representing meta-analyses from medicine). Publication bias was assessed on all homogeneous subsets (3.8% of all subsets of meta-analyses published in Psychological Bulletin) of primary studies included in meta-analyses, because publication bias methods do not have good statistical properties if the true effect size is heterogeneous. Publication bias tests did not reveal evidence for bias in the homogeneous subsets. Overestimation was minimal but statistically significant, providing evidence of publication bias that appeared to be similar in both fields. However, a Monte-Carlo simulation study revealed that the creation of homogeneous subsets resulted in challenging conditions for publication bias methods since the number of effect sizes in a subset was rather small (median number of effect sizes equaled 6). Our findings are in line with, in its most extreme case, publication bias ranging from no bias until only 5% statistically nonsignificant effect sizes being published. These and other findings, in combination with the small percentages of statistically significant primary effect sizes (28.9% and 18.9% for subsets published in Psychological Bulletin and CDSR), led to the conclusion that evidence for publication bias in the studied homogeneous subsets is weak, but suggestive of mild publication bias in both psychology and medicine.
| S-EPMC6461282 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the effect of publication bias on the results and conclusions of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. DESIGN:Analysis of published meta-analyses by trim and fill method. STUDIES:48 reviews in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews that considered a binary endpoint and contained 10 or more individual studies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Number of reviews with missing studies and effect on conclusions of meta-analyses. RESULTS:The trim and fill fixed effects analysis method estimated that 26 (54%) of reviews had missing studies and in 10 the number missing was significant. The corresponding figures with a random effects model were 23 (48%) and eight. In four cases, statistical inferences regarding the effect of the intervention were changed after the overall estimate for publication bias was adjusted for. CONCLUSIONS:Publication or related biases were common within the sample of meta-analyses assessed. In most cases these biases did not affect the conclusions. Nevertheless, researchers should check routinely whether conclusions of systematic reviews are robust to possible non-random selection mechanisms.
| S-EPMC27401 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Because negative findings have less chance of getting published, available studies tend to be a biased sample. This leads to an inflation of effect size estimates to an unknown degree. To see how meta-analyses in education account for publication bias, we surveyed all meta-analyses published in the last five years in the Review of Educational Research and Educational Research Review. The results show that meta-analyses usually neglect publication bias adjustment. In the minority of meta-analyses adjusting for bias, mostly non-principled adjustment methods were used, and only rarely were the conclusions based on corrected estimates, rendering the adjustment inconsequential. It is argued that appropriate state-of-the-art adjustment (e.g., selection models) should be attempted by default, yet one needs to take into account the uncertainty inherent in any meta-analytic inference under bias. We conclude by providing practical recommendations on dealing with publication bias.
| S-EPMC8174709 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study objectivesSleep research has grown substantially in recent decades, producing a large amount of data and an increasing number of meta-analyses. This study sought to establish the volume of meta-analyses in this area and assess how this level of material has developed over time.MethodsA bibliographic search of the Web of Science database was conducted (1945-2019). The total number of articles and the total number of meta-analyses were extracted for both sleep medicine and a combination of 6 other medical specialties (cardiology, neurology, psychiatry, pulmonology, otorhinolaryngology, and pediatrics).ResultsA total of 262,384 articles and 1,152 meta-analyses related to sleep medicine were identified. Considering the whole period under analysis, meta-analyses represented 0.44% of the total number of sleep medicine-related articles. Throughout this period, the proportion of meta-analyses published has been increasing in both sleep medicine and the other fields, but it is greater in the other fields. In 2019, meta-analyses in sleep medicine represented 1.10% of the publication output in this area but represented 1.62% of the other areas. However, sleep medicine's growth rate has been consistently higher than in the other fields. The United States, China, and the United Kingdom have been the top meta-analysis producers.ConclusionsMeta-analyses in sleep medicine are underused. As a recent medical field, sleep medicine has more potential to grow and is likely to grow faster than other fields. Researchers should be encouraged to perform and publish meta-analyses on sleep medicine, as long as the analyses are reasonable and feasible from methodological, statistical. and practical perspectives.
| S-EPMC8020695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Protein aggregation is linked to more than 30 human pathologies, including Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. Since small oligomers that form at the beginning of the fibrillation process probably are the most toxic elements, therapeutic strategies involving fibril fragmentation could be detrimental. An alternative approach, named kinetic inhibition, aims to prevent fibril formation by using small ligands that stabilize the parent protein. The factors that govern fibrillation lag times during kinetic inhibition are largely unknown, notwithstanding their importance for designing effective long-term therapies. Inhibitor-bound species are not likely to be incorporated into the core of mature fibrils, although their presence could alter the kinetics of the fibrillation process. For instance, inhibitor-bound species may act as capping elements that impair the nucleation process and/or fibril growth. Here, we address this issue by studying the effect of two natural inhibitors on the fibrillation behavior of lysozyme at neutral pH. We analyzed a set of 79 fibrillation curves obtained in lysozyme alone and a set of 37 obtained in the presence of inhibitors. We calculated the concentrations of the relevant species at the beginning of the curves using the inhibitor-binding constants measured under the same experimental conditions. We found that inhibitor-bound protein species do not affect fibrillation onset times, which are mainly determined by the concentration of unbound protein species present in equilibrium. In this system, knowledge of the fibrillation kinetics and inhibitor affinities suffices to predict the effect of kinetic inhibitors on fibrillation lag times. In addition, we developed a new methodology to better estimate fibrillation lag times from experimental curves.
| S-EPMC4129507 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePreprints have had a prominent role in the swift scientific response to COVID-19. Two years into the pandemic, we investigated how much preprints had contributed to timely data sharing by analyzing the lag time from preprint posting to journal publication.ResultsTo estimate the median number of days between the date a manuscript was posted as a preprint and the date of its publication in a scientific journal, we analyzed preprints posted from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 in the NIH iSearch COVID-19 Portfolio database and performed a Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis using a non-mixture parametric cure model. Of the 39,243 preprints in our analysis, 7712 (20%) were published in a journal, after a median lag of 178 days (95% CI: 175-181). Most of the published preprints were posted on the bioRxiv (29%) or medRxiv (65%) servers, which allow authors to choose a subject category when posting. Of the 20,698 preprints posted on these two servers, 7358 (36%) were published, including approximately half of those categorized as biochemistry, biophysics, and genomics, which became published articles within the study interval, compared with 29% categorized as epidemiology and 26% as bioinformatics.
| S-EPMC9636814 | biostudies-literature