Estimating magnitude of publication bias in medical study areas and measures to counter it
| Project/Area Number |
06670437
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for General Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Research Field |
Public health/Health science
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Toho University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
SUGITA Minoru Toho University, School of Medicine, Professor, 医学部, 教授 (80051845)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
IZUNO Takashi Toho University, School of Medicine, Assistant, Professor, 医学部, 講師 (20213019)
KANAMORI Masao Toho University, School of Medicine, Associate, Professor, 医学部, 助教授 (90127019)
杉田 稔 東邦大学, 医学部, 教授 (80051845)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
1994 – 1995
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 1995)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥1,200,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,200,000)
Fiscal Year 1995: ¥400,000 (Direct Cost: ¥400,000)
Fiscal Year 1994: ¥800,000 (Direct Cost: ¥800,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | Meta-analysis / Odds ratio / Publication bias / Medical study areas |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
Publication bias is a recognized phenomenon, i.e.studies with statistically significant or clear-cut results are more likely to be published than those finding no difference between the groups studied. Summarized odds ratio calculated from odds ratios of pubulished studies in a meta-analysis may be overestimated because of publication bias. Sugita et al.have developed a method of estimating indirectly the summarized odds ratio of all studies in a given research area, including not only those published but also those unpublished. In the present study, nonpublication in several medical study areas were investigated from the probability density function of all the studies using Sugita's method and a histogram of those published. Notable nonpublication of studies whose odds ratios were close to unity was shown from examples of studies on relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer and clinical trial studies on adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer, whereas nonpublication of studies whose summarized odds ratio was located far from unity was not detected from examples of studies on relationship between cryptorchidism and testicular cancer. In all of the study areas, however, the differences between the summarized odds ratios, either with or without the hypothetical unpublished studies, were not large. The small difference, however, should not be ignored, when the study area is recognized as a social problem. It is pointed out that some of epidemiological studies with odds ratios slightly less than unity and clinical studies with odds ratios slightly more than unity were not published in medical study areas for weak association.
|
Report
(3 results)
Research Products
(9 results)
