...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>European psychiatry: the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists >Is grey literature essential for a better control of publication bias in psychiatry? An example from three meta-analyses of schizophrenia.
【24h】

Is grey literature essential for a better control of publication bias in psychiatry? An example from three meta-analyses of schizophrenia.

机译：灰色文献对于更好地控制精神病学出版偏向性至关重要吗？来自精神分裂症的三项荟萃分析的一个例子。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Systematic reviews in mental health have become useful tools for health professionals in view of the massive amount and heterogeneous nature of biomedical information available today. In order to determine the risk of bias in the studies evaluated and to avoid bias in generalizing conclusions from the reviews it is therefore important to use a very strict methodology in systematic reviews. One bias which may affect the generalization of results is publication bias, which is determined by the nature and direction of the study results. To control or minimize this type of bias, the authors of systematic reviews undertake comprehensive searches of medical databases and expand on the findings, often undertaking searches of grey literature (material which is not formally published). This paper attempts to show the consequences (and risk) of generalizing the implications of grey literature in the control of publication bias, as was proposed in a recent systematic work. By repeating the analyses for the same outcome from three different systematic reviews that included both published and grey literature our results showed that confusion between grey literature and publication bias may affect the results of a concrete meta-analysis.
机译：鉴于当今可用的生物医学信息的数量众多且种类繁多，对精神卫生的系统评价已成为卫生专业人员的有用工具。为了确定所评估研究中存在偏见的风险，并避免在对综述的结论进行概括时产生偏见，因此在系统评价中使用非常严格的方法很重要。可能影响结果概括的一种偏见是出版偏倚，其由研究结果的性质和方向决定。为了控制或最小化这种类型的偏见，系统评价的作者对医学数据库进行了全面的搜索并扩大了其发现范围，经常进行灰色文献（未正式出版的资料）的搜索。如最近的系统工作所建议的那样，本文试图显示将灰色文献的含义概括为控制出版偏见的后果（和风险）。通过对包括已发表文献和灰色文献在内的三个不同系统评价对相同结果的重复分析，我们的结果表明，灰色文献与出版物偏倚之间的混淆可能会影响具体的荟萃分析的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号