Bias in meta-analysis due to outcome variable selection within studies
Bias in meta-analysis due to outcome variable selection within studies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/1467-9876.00197
复制
发表时间：
2000-01-01
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
Williamson, PR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hutton, JL;Williamson, PR
虽然已经研究了选择性出版物引起的荟萃分析偏倚，但研究内选择很少受到关注。慢性病通常有几个可能的结果变量。基于效应大小的方法允许将具有不同结果的研究结果合并。然而，必须考虑有选择地报告结果的可能性。选择性报告的效果和显著性水平的估计的大小，并建议敏感性分析。大量的发表偏倚可能来自于研究结果的多次检验，随后是选择性报告。两个荟萃分析，驱虫治疗和治疗尿失禁，重新评估允许研究内的选择，因为很明显，更多的结果已经测量比报告。敏感性分析表明，驱虫结果的稳健性取决于对最大试验的报告策略所做的假设。儿童内测量之间的相关性可能产生的影响是这样的，结论很容易被推翻。仅对试验内选择的轻度假设的影响可能会改变关于尿失禁治疗的一般建议。
Although bias in meta-analysis arising from selective publication has been studied, within-study selection has received little attention. Chronic diseases often have several possible outcome variables. Methods based on the size of the effect allow results from studies with different outcomes to be combined. However, the possibility of selective reporting of outcomes must be considered. The effect of selective reporting on estimates of the size of the effect and significance levels is presented, and sensitivity analyses are suggested. Substantial publication bias could arise from multiple testing of outcomes in a study, followed by selective reporting. Two meta-analyses, on anthelminth therapy and a treatment for incontinence, are reassessed allowing for within-study selection, as it is clear that more outcomes had been measured than were reported. The sensitivity analyses show that the robustness of the anthelminth results is dependent on what assumption one makes about the reporting strategy for the largest trial. The possible influence of correlation between within-child measurements was such that the conclusions could easily be reversed. The effect of a mild assumption on within-trial selection alone could alter general recommendations about the treatment for incontinence.