Biaix de publicació en meta-anàlisirevisió dels mètodes de detecció i avaluació

  1. Badenes-Ribera, Laura 1
  2. Dolores Frías-Navarro
  3. Amparo Bonilla-Campos
  1. 1 Universitat de València
    info

    Universitat de València

    Valencia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/043nxc105

Revista:
Anuari de psicologia de la Societat Valenciana de Psicologia

ISSN: 1135-1268

Año de publicación: 2017

Volumen: 18

Número: 1

Páginas: 13-30

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openRODERIC editor

Otras publicaciones en: Anuari de psicologia de la Societat Valenciana de Psicologia

Resumen

Meta-analyses are considered as the best tools to synthesize the scientific evidence as to which treatments, interventions, or prevention programs should be applied for a given psychological problem. However, meta-analysis studies are also subject to limitations, such as, publication bias. Therefore, practitioner psychologists need to know how to carry out critical appraisal of them. The goal of this article is to present methods to assessment the publication bias in meta-analytic studies, together with some guidelines to warrant a critical reading of them. The most frequently used are funnel plots, method of the trim and fill, which allow the effects of bias to be estimated, and methods based upon regression on funnel plots, such as Egger’s method. Nevertheless, agreement between these methods in detecting bias is often poor. Therefore, application of more than one method to detect and evaluate of publication bias is recommended.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aguinis, H.; Pierce, C. A.; Bosco, F. A.; Dalton, D. R. i Dalton, C. M. (2011). Debunking myths and urban legends about meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14, pp. 306-331. doi: 10.1177/1094428110375720.
  • American Psychological Association (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Badenes-Ribera, L. i Bonilla-Campos, A. (2017, Marzo). Nivel de conocimiento sobre tamaño del efecto y meta-análisis en psicólogos profesionales españoles. Comunicación presentada al III Congreso Internacional en contextos clínicos y de la salud, Murcia, España.
  • Badenes-Ribera, L.; Frias-Navarro, D.; Pascual-Soler, M. i Monterde-i-Bort, H. (2016). Level of knowledge of the effect size statistics, confidence interval and meta-analysis in Spanish academic psychologists. Psicothema, 26, pp. 448-456, doi: 10.7334/psicothema2016.24.
  • Banks, G. C.; Kepes, S. i Banks, K. P. (2012). Publication bias: The antagonist of meta-analytic reviews and effective policymaking. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, pp. 259-277. doi: 10.3102/0162373712446144.
  • Banks, G. C.; Kepes, S. i McDaniel, M. A. (2012). Publication Bias: A call for improved meta-analytic practice in the organizational sciences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, pp. 182-196. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00591.x.
  • Banks, G. C. i McDaniel, M. A. (2011). The kryptonite of evidencebased I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, pp. 40-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01292.x.
  • Bauer, R. M. (2007). Evidence-based practice in Psychology: implications for research and research training. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63, pp. 685-694. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20374.
  • Begg, C. B. i Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation for publication bias. Biometrics, 50, pp. 1088-1101.
  • Borenstein, M.; Hedges, L. V.; Higgins, J. P. T. i Rothstein, H. (2009). Introduction to Meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.
  • Botella, J. i Sánchez-Meca, J. (2015). Meta-análisis en ciencias sociales y de la salud. Madrid: Ediciones Síntesis.
  • Catalá-López, F. i Tobías, A. (2014). Metaanálisis de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados, heterogeneidad e intervalos de predicción. Medicina Clínica, 142, pp. 270-274. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2013.06.013.
  • Catalá-López, F.; Tobías, A. i Roqué, M. (2014). Conceptos básicos del meta-análisis en red. Atención Primaria, 46, pp. 573-581. doi: 10.1016/j.aprim.2014.01.006
  • Chandler, J.; Churchill, R.; Higgins, J.; Lasserson, T. i Tovey, T. (2013). Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane intervention reviews (MECIR). Disponible en: <http://editorial-unit.cochrane.org/mecir>.
  • Clarke, M. i Clarke, T. (2000). A study of the references used in Cochrane protocols and reviews. Three bibles, three dictionaries, and nearly 25,000 other things. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Heath Care, 16, pp. 907-909.
  • Cooper, H. (1989). Integrating Research: A Guide for Literature Reviews. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
  • Cumming, G. (2014). The New Statistics: Why and How. Psychological Science, 25, pp. 7-29. doi: 10.1177/0956797613504966.
  • Cumming, G.; Fidler, F.; Kalinowski, P. i Lai, J. (2012). The statistical recommendations of the American Psychological Association publication manual: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Australian Journal of Psychology, 64, pp. 138-146. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-9536.2011.00037.x.
  • Duval, S. i Tweedie, R. (2000a). Trim and Fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, pp. 455-463. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x.
  • Duval, S. i Tweedie, R. (2000b). A non-parametric «trim and fill» method of assessing publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of American Statistical Association, 95, pp. 89-98.
  • Egger, M.; Smith, G. D.; Schneider, M. i Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, pp. 629-634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
  • Egger, M.; Dickersin, K. i Smith, G. D. (2001). Problems and limitations in conducting systematic reviews. En M. Egger, G. D. Smith, i D. G. Altman, Systematic reviews in health care (pp. 43-68). London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2nd ed.
  • Egger, M.; Juni, P.; Bartlett, C.; Holenstein, F. i Sterne, J. (2003) How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical Study Health Technology Assessment, 7(1), pp. 1-76.
  • Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect size. Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. New York, NY: Cambridge.
  • Fanelli, D. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 90, pp. 891-904. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0494-7.
  • Ferguson, C. J. i Brannick, M. T. (2011). Publication bias in psychological science: Prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychological Methods, 17, pp. 120-128. doi: 10.1037/a0024445.
  • Field, A. P. i Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, pp. 665-694. doi: 10.1348/000711010X502733.
  • Francis, G. (2012). Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, pp. 151-156. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0227-9.
  • Frías-Navarro, D. i Monterde-i-Bort, H. (2014). Revisión sistemática. Introducción al meta-análisis. En D. Frías-Navarro, M. Pascual-Soler, L. Badenes-Ribera i H. Monterde-i-Bort (eds.). Reforma Estadística en Psicología (pp. 152-168). Valencia: Ediciones Palmero.
  • Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, pp. 3-8. doi: 10.3102/0013189X005010003.
  • Glass, G. V.; Mcgraw, B. i Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Higgins, J. P. i Green, S. (2009). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Versions. 5.0.2. Cochrane Collaboration.
  • Hopewell, S.; McDonald, S.; Clarke, M. i Egger, M. (2007). Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2. Art No: MR000010.
  • Huedo-Medina, T. B. i Johnson, B. T. (2010). Modelos estadísticos en metaanálisis. Oleiros, La Coruña: Netbiblio.
  • Hutton, B.; Catalá-López, F. i Moher, D. (2016). La extensión de la declaración PRISMA para revisiones sistemáticas que incorporan metaanálisis en red: PRISMA-NMA. Medicina Clínica. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2016.02.025.
  • Hutton, B.; Salanti, G.; Caldwell, D. M.; Chaimani, A.; Schmid, C. H.; Cameron, C.; ... Moher, D. (2015). The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Annals of Internal Medicine: Journal, 162, pp. 777-784. doi: 10.7326/M14-2385.
  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis. Clinical Practice, 14, pp. 951-957. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2753.2008.00986.x.
  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2011). Meta-research: The art of getting it wrong. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, pp. 169-184. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.19.
  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. i Trikalinos, T. A. (2007). An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings. Clinical Trials, 4, 245-253. doi: 10.1177/1740774507079441.
  • Johnson, B. T. (1993). DSTAT 1.10. Software for the meta-analytic review of research literatures. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kepes, S.; Banks, G. C.; McDaniel, M. i Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 29, pp. 183-203. doi: 10.1177/1094428112452760.
  • Kepes, S.; Banks, G. C. i Oh, I.-S. (2014). Avoiding bias in publication bias research: The value of «null» findings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, pp. 183-203. doi: 10.1007/s10869-012-9279-0.
  • Kicinski, M. (2013). Publication Bias in Recent Meta-Analyses. PLoS One, 8(11), e81823.
  • Kicinski, M.; Springate, D. A. i Evangelos Kontopantelis, E. (2015). Publication bias in meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Syste matic Reviews. Statistics in Medicine, 34 pp. 2781-2795. doi: 10.1002/sim.6525.
  • Kline, R. B. (2013). Beyond significance testing: Statistic reform in the behavioral sciences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
  • LeLorier, J.; Gregoire, G.; Benhaddad, A.; Lapierre, J. i Derderian, F. (1997). Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. New England Journal Medical, 337, pp. 536-542. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199708213370806.
  • Marín-Martínez, F.; Sánchez-Meca, J. i López-López, J. A. (2009). El metaanálisis en el ámbito de las Ciencias de la Salud: Una metodología imprescindible para la eficiente acumulación del conocimiento. Fisioterapia, 31, pp. 107-114. doi: 10.1016/j.ft.2009.02.002.
  • Moher, D.; Cook, D. J.; Eastwood, S.; Olkin, I.; Rennie, D. i Stroup, D. F. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUORUM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet, 354, pp. 1896-1900. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5.
  • Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzalaff, J.; Altman, D. G. i the PRISMA group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Plos Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
  • Moreno, S. G.; Sutton, A. J.; Ades, A. E.; Stanley, T. D.; Abrams, K. R.; Peters, J. L. i Cooper, N. J. (2009). Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9(2). doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-2.
  • Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48, pp. 133-146. doi: 10.3102/10769986008002157.
  • Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, pp. 638-641. doi: 10.1037/00332909.86.3.638.
  • Rothstein, H. R.; Sutton, A. J. i Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in metaanalysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
  • Sánchez-Meca, J. (2008). Meta-análisis de la investigación. En M. A. Verdugo, M. Crespo, M. Badía i B. Arias (coords.). Metodología en la investigación sobre discapacidad: Introducción al uso de las ecuaciones estructurales. Salamanca: Publicaciones del INICO (Colección ACTAS, 5/2008). Disponible en: <http://www.um.es/metaanalysis/pdf/5023.pdf>.
  • Sánchez-Meca, J. i Botella, J. (2010). Revisiones Sistemáticas y Meta-análisis: herramientas para la práctica profesional. Papeles del Psicólogo, 31, pp. 7-17. Disponible en: <http://www.papelesdelpsicologo.es/pdf/1792.pdf>.
  • Sánchez-Meca, J.; López-López, J. A. i López-Pina, J. A. (2013). Some recommended statistical analytic practices when reliability generalization studies are conducted. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66, pp. 402-425. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.2012.02057.x.
  • Shea, B. J.; Grimshaw, J. M.; Wells, G. A.; Boers, M.; Andersson, N.; Hamel, C.; ... Bouter, L. M. (2007). Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, pp. 10-16. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-10.
  • Song, F.; Parekh, S.; Hooper, L.; Loke, Y. K.; Ryder, J.; Sutton, A. J.; ... Harvey, I. (2010). Dissemination and publication of research findings: An updated review of related biases. Health Technology Assessment, 14, pp. 1-220. doi: 10.3310/hta14080.
  • Spring, B. (2007). Evidence-based practice in clinical psychology: What it is, why it matters; what you need to know. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63, pp. 611-631. doi: 10.1002/jclip.20373.
  • Sterne, J. A. i Egger, M. (2005). Regression methods to detect publication bias and other bias in meta-analysis. En H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton i M. Borenstein (eds.). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 99-110). West Sussex: Wiley.
  • Sterne, J. A.; Gavaghan, D. i Egger, M. (2005). The funnel plot. En H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton i M. Borenstein (eds.), Publication bias in metaanalysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 75-98). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
  • Sterne, J. A.; Sutton, A. J.; Ioannidis, J. P. A.; Terri, N.; Jones, D. R.; ... Higgins, J. P. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 342, d4002-d4010. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4002.
  • Stroup, D. F.; Berlin, J. A.; Morton, S. C.; Olkin, I.; Williamson, G. D.; Rennie, D.; ... Thacker, S. B. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. A proposal for reporting. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, pp. 2008-2012. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.
  • Sutton, A. J.; Duval, S. J.; Tweedie, R. L.; Abrams, K. R. A. i Jones, D. R. (2000). Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 320, pp. 1574-1577.
  • Sutton, A. J. i Higgins, J. (2008). Recent developments in meta-analysis. Statistics in medicine, 27, pp. 625-650. doi: 10.1002/sim.2934.
  • Tang, J-L. i Liu, J. L. Y. (2000). Misleading funnel plot for detection of bias in meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53, pp. 477-484. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00204-8.
  • Terrin, N.; Schmid, C. H. i Lau, J. (2005). In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, pp. 894-901. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.006.
  • Terrin, N.; Schmid, C. H.; Lau, J. i Olkin, I. (2003). Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 22, pp. 2113- 2126.
  • Torgerson, C. J. (2006). Publication bias: The Achilles’ heel of systematic reviews? British Journal of Educational Studies, 54, pp. 89-102. doi: 110.1111/j.1467-8527.2006.00332.x.
  • Urra-Medina, E. i Barría-Pailaquilén, R. (2010). Systematic review and its relationship with Evidence-Based Practice in health. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermería, 18(4), pp. 824-831. Disponible en <http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rlae/v18n4/23.pdf>.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet