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 the funnel plot did not provide evidence of publication bias.

4 ize across all malignancies due to potential publication bias.

5 There was no evidence of publication bias.

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

7 heterogeneity among studies and evidence for publication bias.

8 0001), but these analyses were confounded by publication bias.

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

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

11 that these results were not attributable to publication bias.

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

13 ity in results between studies and potential publication bias.

14 There was no evidence of publication bias.

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

16 Analyses provided no indication of publication bias.

17 27 (1.10-1.46; I(2)=0%), with no evidence of publication bias.

18 0.00), with no evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias.

19 or data inhomogeneity, and identification of publication bias.

20 There was no significant heterogeneity or publication bias.

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

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

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

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

25 There was some suggestion of publication bias.

26 There was no evidence of publication bias.

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

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

29 eterogeneity between studies and evidence of publication bias.

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

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

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

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

34 verestimation of the existence and extent of publication bias.

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

36 published literature may be attributable to publication bias.

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

38 There was no evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias.

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

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

41 s demonstrated significant heterogeneity and publication bias.

42 ommunity should be aware of the existence of publication bias.

43 blood and marrow transplantation (BMT) lacks publication bias.

44 m-and-fill procedure was used to correct for publication bias.

45 y of these markers and to better control for publication bias.

46 as significant heterogeneity and evidence of publication bias.

47 geneity across studies and the likelihood of publication bias.

48 plots were examined as a diagnostic test for publication bias.

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

50 neity between study outcomes and significant publication bias.

51 wever, by potential residual confounding and publication bias.

52 There was clear evidence of publication bias.

53 eterogeneity between studies and evidence of publication bias.

54 0.0007), although there was some evidence of publication bias.

55 82.65%, p < 0.001) and evidence of possible publication bias.

56 ies were identified to meaningfully test for publication bias.

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

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

59 We observed no evidence of publication bias.

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

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

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

63 validated frailty instruments, and potential publication bias.

64 individual studies, further reducing risk of publication bias.

65 heterogeneity due to unmeasured factors, and publication bias.

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

67 effect sizes across all malignancies due to publication bias.

68 ffects models for analysis and evaluated for publication bias.

69 th many methodological limitations; possible publication bias.

70 ns simply reflect pedigree ascertainment and publication bias.

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

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

73 direct tests did not provide any evidence of 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 The funnel plot is consistent with publication bias against studies that do not report stat

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

79 indings are consistent with the existence of publication bias among novel cGxE studies, making cGxE h

80 There also appears to be publication bias among replication attempts because posi

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

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

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

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

85 We assessed publication bias and investigated heterogeneity through

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

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

88 Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been re

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

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

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

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

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

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

95 Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be exclu

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

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

98 was unchanged after adjustment for potential publication bias and there was no evidence of important

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

100 Retrieval and publication biases and poor study quality.

101 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.90], but with evidence of publication bias) and an increase in all bleeding events

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

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

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

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

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

107 pe heterogeneity, population stratification, publication bias, and multiple comparison testing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

114 Publication biases appear to substantially contaminate t

115 Publication bias appears highly prevalent, with under-re

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

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

118 y was evaluated using Q statistics and I and publication bias assessed with funnel plots and Egger's

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

120 We evaluated publication bias at an international conference, the 200

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

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

123 Little evidence of publication bias but relatively large heterogeneity was

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

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

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

127 There was no evidence of publication bias, but we noted significant residual hete

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

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

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

131 Publication bias compromises the validity of evidence-ba

132 Publication bias could be a concern.

133 Publication bias could not be assessed.

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

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

136 Publication bias could not be excluded.

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

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

139 22 (95% CI 1.63-6.33), with some evidence of publication bias (Egger's test p=0.018, Begg's test p=0.

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

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

142 We conclude that publication bias exists in the BMT literature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

149 Publication bias in favor of positive findings influence

150 regression test is often used to help detect publication bias in meta-analyses.

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

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

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

154 The evidence for publication bias in the studies considered is also raise

155 There were indications of publication bias in these reports, although the fail-saf

156 (1.02-1.10), but there was an indication of publication bias in these studies.

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

158 Concerns about publication bias, inconsistent study results, increased

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

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

161 Publication bias is likely but difficult to assess in th

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

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

164 Publication bias is the preferential publication of rese

165 creening, variable selection algorithms, and publication bias limited reporting of risk factors among

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

167 ndings were consistent with the existence of publication bias, low statistical power, and a high fals

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

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

170 Reporting and publication biases may have contributed to an overestima

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

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

176 No publication bias or heterogeneity among these 18 studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

184 There was no evidence of publication bias (P = .27, bias coefficient analysis).

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

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

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

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

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

190 Publication bias, possible selective reporting of outcom

191 However, publication biases preclude any definite conclusions for

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

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

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

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

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

197 Publication bias risks were assessed by means of funnel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

209 After adjustment for publication bias, there was no association between ALA a

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

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

212 ad worse outcomes, which suggests there is a publication bias towards short treatment intervals from

213 e power to Egger's regression test to detect publication bias under conditions of low between-study h

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

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

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

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

218 ence of funnel plot asymmetry suggested that publication bias was a likely source of this heterogenei

219 Publication bias was a possibility.

220 After publication bias was accounted for, there were no longer

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 Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and Egge

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

233 Publication bias was corrected for using funnel plots, t

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

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

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

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

238 No publication bias was detected.

239 No publication bias was detected.

240 No evidence of significant publication bias was detected.

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

242 No publication bias was discerned.

243 Publication bias was evaluated by trim-and-fill analysis

244 Publication bias was evaluated by using funnel plots and

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

246 Potential publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots.

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 evaluated with funnel plots and Beg

250 Publication bias was evaluated with funnel plots and the

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

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

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

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

255 Little evidence of publication bias was found.

256 No significant publication bias was found.

257 No evidence of significant publication bias was found.

258 No publication bias was identified.

259 Publication bias was minimal and affirms the translation

260 Publication bias was mitigated by searching clinicaltria

261 The risk of publication bias was moderate.

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

263 Publication bias was not detected and narrative synthesi

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

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

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

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

268 Minor publication bias was observed in small animal studies.

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

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

271 No evidence of publication bias was observed.

272 No evidence of publication bias was observed.

273 Little evidence of publication bias was observed.

274 Assessment of publication bias was only possible for studies assessing

275 Publication bias was persistent, particularly for follow

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

277 Publication bias was present for POPF.

278 No publication bias was present for the observational studi

279 However, significant publication bias was present.

280 No publication bias was shown.

281 ence of funnel plot asymmetry suggested that publication bias was the likely source of heterogeneity.

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

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

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

285 Tests for publication bias were done by using funnel plots, hetero

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

287 Heterogeneity and publication bias were explored.

288 and cases, tests of study heterogeneity, and publication bias were extracted by 1 investigator and re

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

290 Selective reporting and publication bias were possible.

291 Findings adjusted for publication bias were similar.

292 for assessing statistical heterogeneity and publication bias were used.

293 No publication biases were observed for these markers.

294 ch regression test and their power to detect publication bias when it is present (the proportion of t

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

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

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

300 ith Barrett esophagus is probably subject to publication bias, with small series reporting a higher i