Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions

UK Cochrane Centre, NHS R&D Programme, Summertown Pavilion, Middle Way, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK, OX2 7LG.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 02/2007; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000010.pub3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The inclusion of grey literature (i.e. literature that has not been formally published) in systematic reviews may help to overcome some of the problems of publication bias, which can arise due to the selective availability of data.
To review systematically research studies, which have investigated the impact of grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions.
We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to 20 May 2005), the Science Citation Index (June 2005) and contacted researchers who may have carried out relevant studies.
A study was considered eligible for this review if it compared the effect of the inclusion and exclusion of grey literature on the results of a cohort of meta-analyses of randomized trials.
Data were extracted from each report independently by two reviewers. The main outcome measure was an estimate of the impact of trials from the grey literature on the pooled effect estimates of the meta-analyses. Information was also collected on the area of health care, the number of meta-analyses, the number of trials, the number of trial participants, the year of publication of the trials, the language and country of publication of the trials, the number and type of grey and published literature, and methodological quality.
Five studies met the inclusion criteria. All five studies showed that published trials showed an overall greater treatment effect than grey trials. This difference was statistically significant in one of the five studies. Data could be combined for three of the five studies. This showed that, on average, published trials showed a 9% greater treatment effect than grey trials (ratio of odds ratios for grey versus published trials 1.09; 95% CI 1.03-1.16). Overall there were more published trials included in the meta-analyses than grey trials (median 224 (IQR 108-365) versus 45(IQR 40-102)). Published trials had more participants on average. The most common types of grey literature were abstracts (55%) and unpublished data (30%). There is limited evidence to show whether grey trials are of poorer methodological quality than published trials.
This review shows that published trials tend to be larger and show an overall greater treatment effect than grey trials. This has important implications for reviewers who need to ensure they identify grey trials, in order to minimise the risk of introducing bias into their review.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hitting a dental root during the insertion of orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) is a common adverse effect of this intervention. This condition can permanently damage these structures and can cause implant instability. Increased torque levels (index test) recorded during the insertion of OMIs may provide a more accurate and immediate diagnosis of implant-root contact (target condition) than radiographic imaging (reference standard). An accurate index test could reduce or eliminate X-ray exposure. These issues, the common use of OMIs, the high prevalence of the target condition, and because most OMIs are placed between roots warrant a systematic review. We will assess 1) the diagnostic accuracy and the adverse effects of the index test, 2) whether OMIs with root contact have higher insertion torque values than those without, and 3) whether intermediate torque values have clinical diagnostic utility. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement was used as a the guideline for reporting this protocol. Inserting implants deliberately into dental roots of human participants would not be approved by ethical review boards and adverse effects of interventions are generally underreported. We will therefore apply broad spectrum eligibility criteria, which will include clinical, animal and cadaver models. Not including these models could slow down knowledge translation. Both randomized and non-randomized research studies will be included. Comparisons of interest and subgroups are pre-specified. We will conduct searches in MEDLINE and more than 40 other electronic databases. We will search the grey literature and reference lists and hand-search ten journals. All methodological procedures will be conducted by three reviewers. Study selection, data extraction and analyses, and protocols for contacting authors and resolving conflicts between reviewers are described. Designed specific risk of bias tools will be tailored to the research question. Different research models will be analysed separately. Parameters for exploring statistical heterogeneity and conducting meta-analyses are pre-specified. The quality of evidence for outcomes will be assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The findings of this systematic review will be useful for patients, clinicians, researchers, guideline developers, policymakers, and surgical companies.
    04/2015; 4(1):39. DOI:10.1186/s13643-015-0014-6
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and aims: Brief alcohol interventions in medical settings are efficacious in improving self-reported alcohol consumption among those with low-severity alcohol problems. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment initiatives presume that brief interventions are efficacious in linking patients to higher levels of care, but pertinent evidence has not been evaluated. We estimated main and subgroup effects of brief alcohol interventions, regardless of their inclusion of a referral-specific component, in increasing the utilization of alcohol-related care. Methods. A systematic review of English language articles published in electronic databases through 2013. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of brief alcohol interventions in general healthcare settings with adult and adolescent samples. We excluded studies that lacked alcohol services utilization data. Extractions of study characteristics and outcomes were standardized and independently conducted. The primary outcome was post-treatment alcohol services utilization assessed by self-report or administrative data, which we compared across intervention and control groups. Results: Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria and nine were meta-analyzed (n = 993 and n = 937 intervention and control group participants, respectively). In our main analyses the pooled risk ratio was RR=1.08 (95% CI=0.92-1.28). Five studies compared referral-specific interventions with a control condition without such interventions (pooled RR=1.08, 95% CI=0.81-1.43). Other subgroup analyses of studies with common characteristics (e.g., age, setting, severity, risk of bias) yielded non-statistically significant results. Conclusions: There is a lack of evidence that brief alcohol interventions have any efficacy for increasing the receipt of alcohol-related services.
    Addiction 04/2015; DOI:10.1111/add.12950 · 4.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dental practitioners face new clinical challenges on a daily basis. New treatment options and diagnostic tools are disseminated quickly, and the volume of articles and new evidence is overwhelming. Systematic reviews summarize and synthesize the available evidence related to diagnosis, therapy, prognosis, and harm for clinicians, patients, and decision makers. Such reviews represent one of the most powerful tools to translate knowledge into action. The critical appraisal of this type of study involves assessing the risk of bias, results, and applicability of such study. The authors provide guidance for clinicians to critically appraise systematic reviews and apply the findings in clinical practice. Copyright © 2015 American Dental Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) 04/2015; 146(4):255-265.e1. DOI:10.1016/j.adaj.2015.01.025 · 2.24 Impact Factor