The use and misuse of methods for publication bias assessment and adjustment in meta-analyses of psychotherapeutic interventions: A systematic survey of the literature
Permanent lenke
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/25528Åpne
(PDF)
Supplementary material 1 (S1) (PDF)
Supplementary material 2 (S2) (PDF)
Supplementary material 3 (S3) (PDF)
Supplementary material 4 (S4) (PDF)
Supplementary material 5 (S5) (PDF)
Supplementary material 6 (S6) (PDF)
Supplementary material 7 (S7) (PDF)
Dato
2021-12-16Type
Master thesisMastergradsoppgave
Sammendrag
Publication bias poses a threat to the validity of meta-analytic reviews, as it can lead
to summary effect size estimates becoming inflated. Meta-analysts are advised to utilize
multiple methods for detecting and controlling for publication bias. Our study aims to
examine which and how many methods meta-analysts of psychotherapeutic interventions for
depression, anxiety and PTSD utilize to identify and correct for publication bias, and to
which extent they detect it. Additionally, we aim to provide some indication of the degree to
which publication bias has (or has not) influenced meta-analytic estimates in this field, by
reanalyzing meta-analyses for which study level data are available. 86 meta-analyses were
included in our sample, and 37 meta-analyses also met the eligibility criteria for reanalysis.
Findings demonstrate that 66 of 86 (76,7%) included meta-analyses utilized at least 1
publication bias method. 32 of 86 (37%) of the included meta-analyses utilized at least three
publication bias methods. None of the included meta-analyses utilized a selection model
approach. The funnel plot asymmetry tests varied from detecting publication bias on ~20%
(Egger’s regression) to ~65% (trim-and-fill). The results from reanalyzes of study-level data
indicates some inflation of effect size estimates, although the adjusted results generally do not
considerably change the overall conclusions of these meta-analyses. Our overall findings
indicate some degree of publication bias, that could go undetected because some meta-analysts do not sufficiently adhere to recommendations regarding publication bias methods.
Forlag
UiT Norges arktiske universitetUiT The Arctic University of Norway
Metadata
Vis full innførselSamlinger
Copyright 2021 The Author(s)
Følgende lisensfil er knyttet til denne innførselen: