Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias
Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.38478.497164.f7
复制
发表时间：
2005-08-20
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Beck-Bornholdt, HP
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dubben, HH;Beck-Bornholdt, HP
方法和结果我们使用检索词“发表偏倚”、“引用偏倚”、“语言偏倚”、“位置偏倚”、“参考文献偏倚”或“多篇发表偏倚”，在Medline（1993年1月至2003年10月）中确定了评估发表偏倚影响的研究。我们还检索了关于发表偏倚的科克伦综述的参考文献。[4]我们将检索限制在主要研究发表偏倚的出版物上，因此，这些出版物的接受程度可能取决于它们是否发现了发表偏倚。共检索到265篇参考文献。其中，我们选择了148个进行全面检查。他们的参考书目产生了26个额外的文件。我们排除了148项研究，因为它们没有提供原始数据。剩下的26个都被纳入了分析（见《英国医学杂志》。com）。
Methods and resultsWe identified studies that assessed the impact of publication bias in Medline (January 1993 to October 2003) using the search terms “publication bias”,“citation bias”,“language bias”, location bias”,“reference bias”, or “multiple publication bias”. We also searched the references of a Cochrane review on publication bias. 4 We restricted the search to publications that primarily investigated publication bias and whose acceptance therefore might have depended on whether they had found publication bias or not. We retrieved 265 references. Of these, we chose 148 for full examination. Their bibliographies yielded 26 additional papers. We excluded 148 studies because they gave no original data. All remaining 26 were included in the analysis (see bmj. com).