ライフサイエンスコーパス: publication bias

1 meta-analysis is confounded by missing data (publication bias).

2 sessment of risk of bias across studies (ie, publication bias).

3 r (k=8; 1.02 [0.90-1.15]; I(2)=97.84% and no publication bias).

4 We observed no evidence of publication bias.

5 dies was found, but there was no evidence of publication bias.

6 dies, few good-quality studies, and possible publication bias.

7 validated frailty instruments, and potential publication bias.

8 individual studies, further reducing risk of publication bias.

9 heterogeneity due to unmeasured factors, and publication bias.

10 sis and a network meta-analysis and assessed publication bias.

11 s minimal to moderate, with rare evidence of publication bias.

12 effect sizes across all malignancies due to publication bias.

13 th many methodological limitations; possible publication bias.

14 re is limited long-term data and substantial publication bias.

15 ns simply reflect pedigree ascertainment and publication bias.

16 with any heterogeneity in effect size and no publication bias.

17 common method (n = 30 synopses) of assessing publication bias.

18 direct tests did not provide any evidence of publication bias.

19 the funnel plot did not provide evidence of publication bias.

20 SSI remained after correction for potential publication bias.

21 ize across all malignancies due to potential publication bias.

22 There was no evidence of publication bias.

23 (ps > .90), and there was no indication of a publication bias.

24 heterogeneity among studies and evidence for publication bias.

25 0001), but these analyses were confounded by publication bias.

26 y (n = 18) settings, without any evidence of publication bias.

27 and the funnel plot provided no evidence for publication bias.

28 ions suggest that the results are not due to publication bias.

29 that these results were not attributable to publication bias.

30 tween-study heterogeneity but no evidence of publication bias.

31 ity in results between studies and potential publication bias.

32 random effect meta-analyses and adjusted for publication bias.

33 a random-effects meta-analysis and assessed publication bias.

34 Analyses provided no indication of publication bias.

35 27 (1.10-1.46; I(2)=0%), with no evidence of publication bias.

36 or data inhomogeneity, and identification of publication bias.

37 There was no significant heterogeneity or publication bias.

38 ts and Egger's linear regression to test for publication bias.

39 of T2D events, which may be attributable to publication bias.

40 ibuting studies (I(2)=64.4%) and evidence of publication bias.

41 gnificant after trim-and-fill correction for publication bias.

42 There was some suggestion of publication bias.

43 er quality trials, sparse data, and possible publication bias.

44 determined to be at moderate-to-high risk of publication bias.

45 m-and-fill analyses to identify a negligible publication bias.

46 nges in co-medication, delay in response and publication bias.

47 or confounding and selection, reporting, and publication bias.

48 udy quality, and the Egger test was used for publication bias.

49 be explained, but there was no indication of publication bias.

50 published literature may be attributable to publication bias.

51 ich are more likely to be noticed because of publication bias.

52 There was no evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias.

53 ted during the study years were assessed for publication bias.

54 tion models, and the difficulty of assessing publication bias.

55 s demonstrated significant heterogeneity and publication bias.

56 This might be due to publication bias.

57 terogeneity between studies and evidence for publication bias.

58 ot and Egger test did not reveal significant publication bias.

59 primarily retrospective studies and positive publication bias.

60 Funnel plot analysis suggested substantial publication bias.

61 y underreport the durability of QR, owing to publication bias.

62 all completed studies were included to avoid publication bias.

63 Egger's test (p=0.44) showed no evidence of publication bias.

64 ffects models for analysis and evaluated for publication bias.

65 0.00), with no evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias.

66 eterogeneity between studies and evidence of publication bias.

67 verestimation of the existence and extent of publication bias.

68 d fill' were used to examine and correct for publication bias.

69 score, 8.2; range, 5-12) with no evidence of publication bias.

70 82.65%, p < 0.001) and evidence of possible publication bias.

71 ies were identified to meaningfully test for publication bias.

72 ty and funnel plots were applied to evaluate publication bias.

73 y affected by between-study heterogeneity or publication bias.

74 he results of this review may be affected by publications bias.

75 ty of the effects among the studies, and few publication biases.

76 his latter finding could be interpreted as a publication bias against non-US authors, the US effect o

77 sensitivity analysis to adjust for possible publication bias against weak results did not diminish t

78 There was no evidence of publication bias, although heterogeneity was high (I(2)

79 There was no publication bias and a sensitivity analysis confirmed th

80 Our analysis also showed the absence of publication bias and any dose-response relations between

81 areas of reproducible research (for example, publication bias and conceptual replications).

82 This backloaded selectivity enforces publication bias and encourages authors to selectively r

83 Fifteen of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting

84 Publication bias and heterogeneity between studies were

85 We provide direct evidence of publication bias and identify the stage of research prod

86 We assessed publication bias and investigated heterogeneity through

87 pplicability and power in RCTs, and possible publication bias and lack of adjusted analyses in NRCSs.

88 are effective for plague treatment, although publication bias and low numbers in certain treatment gr

89 ation may have been overestimated because of publication bias and low study quality.

90 Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been re

91 mpirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias is shown.

92 s addressed with I(2) index, controlling for publication bias and quality of study.

93 openly available should minimize problems of publication bias and questionable post hoc analyses.

94 im and fill analysis, suggesting only slight publication bias and reducing the overall effect to a 19

95 heart disease is inconsistent and subject to publication bias and reverse causation bias.

96 were performed, as well as investigations of publication bias and risk of bias.

97 Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be exclu

98 Publication bias and small-study effects were assessed u

99 overall efficacy and assessed the impact of publication bias and study design on the efficacy.

100 There were signs of publication bias and substantial heterogeneity among the

101 multiple testing within and between studies, publication bias and the expectation that true allelic e

102 We also consider potential publication biases and discuss areas for future research

103 (k=23; 0.89 [0.84-0.95]; I(2)=98.47% and no publication bias), and prostate cancer (k=4; 0.78 [0.70-

104 Begg's funnel plot, and Egger test to assess publication bias, and conducted meta-regressions to expl

105 Potential for publication bias, and evaluated health IT systems and ou

106 nadequate reporting of safety data, possible publication bias, and few head-to-head comparisons.

107 Sensitivity analyses evaluated confounding, publication bias, and heterogeneity.

108 mogeneity of the ES distributions, potential publication bias, and impact of potential moderators wer

109 udies, imprecise summary estimates, possible publication bias, and no evaluation of effect on clinica

110 ies (n = 11), existence of heterogeneity and publication bias, and only English-written articles sear

111 he framework addressed residual confounding, publication bias, and p-hacking using large-scale propen

112 ects are small, inflated by risk of bias and publication bias, and particularly unstable at follow-up

113 There was no publication bias, and sensitivity analysis confirmed rob

114 shed in order to overcome winner's curse and publication bias, and to allow for stratification by pat

115 ure of GWAS inherently minimises the risk of publication bias, and where available these studies shou

116 s, including small sample sizes, referral or publication biases, and variability in protocols for sel

117 verall associations by age and sex; assessed publication bias; and qualitatively assessed sensitivity

118 Publication biases appear to substantially contaminate t

119 Publication bias appears highly prevalent, with under-re

120 ificant findings, our analyses would suggest publication bias as a possible reason.

121 studies allowed us to apply a formal test of publication bias, as well as explore the impact of vario

122 n combination with the SE are unsuitable for publication bias assessments and can lead to false-posit

123 research, and often include an assessment of publication bias based on visual or analytical detection

124 symmetrical distribution with no evidence of publication bias (Begg's test: intercept = 0.40; p = 0.6

125 Little evidence of publication bias but relatively large heterogeneity was

126 op cognitive impairment, with no evidence of publication bias but significant heterogeneity between s

127 r (k=4; 0.78 [0.70-0.86]; I(2)=79.68% and no publication bias), but not for colorectal cancer (k=8; 1

128 Mixed evidence was seen for publication bias, but analyses by using the Duval and Tw

129 There was evidence of publication bias, but the effect size barely varied afte

130 We also tested and corrected for publication bias by 3 funnel plot-based methods.

131 tratified analysis, and meta-regression, and publication bias by funnel plots, Egger's test, and fill

132 Assessment of publication bias by the trim and fill method suggested t

133 (k=27; 0.65 [0.60-0.71]; I(2)=97.58% and no publication bias), cervical cancer (k=23; 0.89 [0.84-0.9

134 e results were not significantly affected by publication bias, choice of outcome measure, inclusion o

135 Publication bias compromises the validity of evidence-ba

136 cluded, meta-analysis could not be done, and publication bias could not be assessed.

137 Heterogeneity was high, and publication bias could not be excluded.

138 nly English-language articles were included, publication bias could not be formally assessed, and mos

139 ) tests were not significant; therefore, the publication bias did not play a role in the results.

140 le size (all p < 0.01), with moderate visual publication bias due to missing smaller sample-size stud

141 22 (95% CI 1.63-6.33), with some evidence of publication bias (Egger's test p=0.018, Begg's test p=0.

142 istic was 96.1% and there was no evidence of publication bias (Egger's test, p=0.46).

143 cal heterogeneity (I(2) = 0.0%, p = 0.61) or publication bias (Eggers test t = 1.05, p = 0.32).

144 Trim-and-fill analyses suggest that if publication bias exists, the overall meta-estimate is bi

145 linear regression test revealed a potential publication bias for interleukin 1beta.

146 There was a publication bias for prognostic studies yet no other mod

147 An assessment of the publication bias for the included randomized clinical tr

148 The magnitude of publication bias found for antipsychotics was less than

149 There was no evidence of publication bias; however, we could not separate the con

150 eity tests revealed only minimal evidence of publication bias (I2 = 9%).

151 en identified, such as underpowered studies, publication bias, imprecise theories, and inadequate sta

152 asymmetry and trim-and-fill revealed a clear publication bias in experimental studies and early clini

153 Publication bias in favor of positive findings influence

154 derate to high heterogeneity and evidence of publication bias in most papers.

155 Funnel plots demonstrated positive publication bias in PPV and PPV plus JPL groups.

156 Egger testing confirmed significant publication bias in studies including small numbers of p

157 We studied publication bias in the social sciences by analyzing a k

158 However, there is evidence for a positive publication bias in this field.

159 Concerns about publication bias, inconsistent study results, increased

160 Potential for publication bias, insufficient reporting of harms, and p

161 ical plausibility of these associations, but publication bias is an ongoing concern.

162 No studies had low risk of bias, publication bias is likely, and studies may have been mi

163 tation method was used in 73% of trials, and publication bias is possible.

164 Thus one may determine whether publication bias is present and quantify the extent to w

165 MDD, high thresholds for quality, potential publication bias, limited data on harms, and sparse evid

166 ere heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present.

167 Publication bias may have increased effect estimates by

168 iation between the four major areas and ASD, publication bias may have led to an overestimation of th

169 Reporting and publication biases may have contributed to an overestima

170 impact of compromised internal validity and publication bias mean that efficacy is likely to be some

171 nt primary end points and time to treatment, publication bias, neglected quality criteria and low pow

172 ain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fixed-effe

173 There was no significant publication bias observed.

174 fy the stage of research production at which publication bias occurs: Authors do not write up and sub

175 OR 0.76 [95% CI 0.72-0.79]; I(2)=98.53% with publication bias of Egger's p value=0.025), breast cance

176 There was evidence for significant publication bias only for the discounting domain, after

177 There was no evidence of publication bias or difference between active- and passi

178 No publication bias or heterogeneity among these 18 studies

179 t from previously published studies reflects publication bias or methodological problems.

180 from cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias or outcome reporting bias in randomised

181 No publication bias or small-study effects were observed fo

182 We found no evidence that publication bias or study heterogeneity significantly in

183 Results were not explained by publication bias or undue influence of individual studie

184 ng bias was examined and classified as study publication bias, outcome reporting bias, or spin (abstr

185 We found evidence for study publication bias (P < .001), outcome reporting bias (P =

186 Funnel plots showed no evidence of publication bias (P = 0.841).

187 There was no evidence of publication bias (P value for Egger test=0.34).

188 Because of significant publication bias, pooled diagnostic measures might be ov

189 luded studies, testing for heterogeneity and publication bias, pooling results across studies, and fo

190 mple sizes, selective reporting of outcomes, publication bias, poor reporting, and heterogeneous outc

191 Publication bias, possible selective reporting of outcom

192 However, publication biases preclude any definite conclusions for

193 ld studies, i.e., data free of reporting and publication bias (r = 0.103, 95% CI 0.074-0.132, eight s

194 Accounting for publication bias reduced the odds ratios for the various

195 , but accounting for small-trial effects and publication bias reduced the SMD to 0.38.

196 f significant between-study heterogeneity or publication bias, respectively, were identified.

197 Moreover, the presence of publication bias resulted in a ~30% overestimate of effe

198 Results, with correction for publication bias, revealed a significant and positive re

199 Taking into account publication bias, RhoA/ROCK inhibition improves function

200 Publication bias risks were assessed by means of funnel

201 was used depending on heterogeneity (I(2)); publication bias risks were assessed by means of funnel

202 describing how psychologists' concerns with publication bias shifted from worrying about file-drawer

203 Limitation: Possible publication bias, small sample sizes of many studies, an

204 NAC and xanthine was probably influenced by publication bias/small-study effect.

205 Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatm

206 There was no evidence of publication bias suggested by an Egger test.

207 epticism about most statistical solutions to publication bias, take positions on the analysis and int

208 prognosis during the acute phase, despite a publication bias that could have led to an overestimatio

209 quence learning, partly because of a general publication bias that favors novel results.

210 usions, we identify troubling indications of publication bias that may exaggerate effects.

211 Limitations include possible publication bias, that reports stratify workers mostly b

212 After adjustment for publication bias, the overall relative risk was reduced

213 After adjusting for publication bias, the results of 14 studies indicated th

214 or exhaled VOC profiles were calculated; and publication bias, threshold effect and heterogeneity wer

215 tibiotic therapy and probably resulting in a publication bias toward positive cases.

216 ll, these associations were not explained by publication bias, undue effects of individual studies, o

217 These results could not be accounted for by publication biases, unusual results from any one observa

218 lyses using the I(2) statistic and evaluated publication bias using funnel plots.

219 ga-3 benefit was removed after adjusting for publication bias using the trim-and-fill method (SMD=0.0

220 eterogeneity was found (I(2) test, 85%), and publication bias was absent (Egger test, P = 0.57).

221 Possible publication bias was also detected.

222 Heterogeneity was assessed using I(2) and publication bias was assessed using Begg's funnel plot a

223 Potential publication bias was assessed using Egger's and Begg's t

224 Publication bias was assessed using Egger's test.

225 quality was assessed using Jadad score, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egg

226 Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots.

227 g the I(2) statistic, and the possibility of publication bias was assessed using the funnel plot and

228 Publication bias was assessed using various methods.

229 Publication bias was assessed via Begg's and Egger's tes

230 geneity was evaluated using I(2) statistics, publication bias was assessed via funnel plots and the B

231 Risk of publication bias was assessed with Egger's test.

232 Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and Egge

233 sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs

234 Publication bias was corrected for using funnel plots, t

235 No evidence of publication bias was demonstrated on visual or statistic

236 omized trials, for which no heterogeneity or publication bias was detected (p = .77), dopamine was as

237 No evidence of publication bias was detected by Begg's and Egger's regr

238 ertension, dyslipidemia, and stroke, whereas publication bias was detected for RFCS and diabetes.

239 No publication bias was detected.

240 vity analyses and no evidence of significant publication bias was detected.

241 Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots and the E

242 Publication bias was evaluated by funnel plots, the Egge

243 Publication bias was evaluated by using funnel plots and

244 The potential existence of publication bias was evaluated by using funnel-plot anal

245 Potential publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots.

246 Publication bias was evaluated via funnel plot and Egger

247 The publication bias was evaluated with begg's and egger's t

248 Publication bias was evaluated with Begg's test.

249 Publication bias was evident for studies that evaluated

250 No heterogeneity or publication bias was evident in the main analyses.

251 The potential for publication bias was explored by using funnel plots, Beg

252 Small-sample bias indicative of possible publication bias was found for some effects, particularl

253 No evidence of publication bias was found in this analysis of studies o

254 Little evidence of publication bias was found.

255 No significant publication bias was found.

256 No evidence of significant publication bias was found.

257 No evidence of publication bias was found.

258 0.32; 95%CI = 0.19-0.55, P < 0.001) however publication bias was highly likely.

259 No publication bias was identified.

260 Study quality was low to medium; the risk of publication bias was low (P = .10).

261 Publication bias was minimal and affirms the translation

262 Publication bias was mitigated by searching clinicaltria

263 Publication bias was modeled using funnel plots.

264 The risk of publication bias was moderate.

265 ase in the effect size point estimate due to publication bias was modest (8%) and not statistically s

266 Publication bias was not detected and narrative synthesi

267 Publication bias was not evident (Egger P = .28); hetero

268 Publication bias was not evident (Egger P = .44).

269 Publication bias was not evident (Egger P = .51); hetero

270 Publication bias was not evident, except in the case of

271 Minor publication bias was observed in small animal studies.

272 Although publication bias was observed, the results did not chang

273 Little evidence of publication bias was observed.

274 No statistical evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias was observed.

275 No evidence of publication bias was observed.

276 Assessment of publication bias was only possible for studies assessing

277 Publication bias was persistent, particularly for follow

278 ional, 21 of 36 studies had serious ROB, and publication bias was possible.

279 re often information or waitlist groups, and publication bias was possible.

280 Publication bias was present for POPF.

281 No publication bias was present for the observational studi

282 However, significant publication bias was present.

283 No publication bias was shown.

284 ical techniques that evaluate and adjust for publication bias, we question whether depletion is a rea

285 Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed using I2 and Begg and Egg

286 Study quality and publication bias were assessed using the modified Newcas

287 investigate whether experimental issues and publication bias were contributing to inconsistency and/

288 Heterogeneity and publication bias were evaluated using the I(2) index and

289 Heterogeneity and publication bias were evaluated.

290 Heterogeneity and publication bias were explored.

291 Significant heterogeneity and publication bias were observed for most percutaneous tra

292 Selective reporting and publication bias were possible.

293 Findings adjusted for publication bias were similar.

294 No publication biases were observed for these markers.

295 This can arise from publication bias, where data from statistically signific

296 nd that the included studies may suffer from publication bias, whereby substantial differences betwee

297 of this systematic review was the threat of publication bias wherein many countries may not have doc

298 sual inspection of a funnel plot revealed no publication bias, which was confirmed by the Begg test (

299 increased access to regulatory agency data, publication bias will continue to blur distinctions betw

300 -point-item quality checklist and calculated publication bias with Egger regression and the trim and