Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

GRADE Leitlinien: 5. Einschätzung der Qualität der Evidenz - Publikationsbias

Translated title of the contribution: GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence - Publication bias
  • Alexandra Nolting
  • , Matthias Perleth
  • , Gero Langer
  • , Joerg J. Meerpohl
  • , Gerald Gartlehner
  • , Angela Kaminski-Hartenthaler
  • , Holger J. Schünemann
  • Abteilung Fachberatung Medizin
  • Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg
  • University of Freiburg
  • University for Continuing Education Krems

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

29 Scopus citations

Abstract

In the GRADE approach, randomized trials are classified as high quality evidence and observational studies as low quality evidence but both can be rated down if a body of evidence is associated with a high risk of publication bias. Even when individual studies included in best-evidence summaries have a low risk of bias, publication bias can result in substantial overestimates of effect. Authors should suspect publication bias when available evidence comes from a number of small studies most of which have been commercially funded. A number of approaches based on examination of the pattern of data are available to help assess publication bias. The most popular of these is the funnel plot; all, however, have substantial limitations. Publication bias is likely frequent, and caution in the face of early results, particularly with small sample size and number of events, is warranted.

Translated title of the contributionGRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence - Publication bias
Original languageGerman
Pages (from-to)670-676
Number of pages7
JournalZeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen
Volume106
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - 2012

Keywords

  • confidence in estimates
  • GRADE
  • publication bias
  • quality of evidence
  • systematic reviews

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence - Publication bias'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this