Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews.

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are an important source of information about healthcare interventions. A key component of a well-conducted SR is a comprehensive literature search. There is limited evidence on the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies, and dissertations and th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:BMC Medical Research Methodology Vol. 17; pp. 1 - 12
Autores principales: Hartling, Lisa, Featherstone, Robin, Nuspl, Megan, Shave, Kassi, Dryden, Donna M., Vandermeer, Ben
Formato: Journal Article
Publicado: BioMed Central 4/19/2017
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=122590877&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 122590877
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        14712288
        1CI1
      jtl: BMC Medical Research Methodology
      issn: 14712288
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: 4/19/2017
      vid: 17
      pid: 24147
      pub: BioMed Central
    artinfo:
      ui:
        122590877
        122590877
        NLM28420349
        10.1186/s12874-017-0347-z
        NLM28420349
        122590877
      ppf: 1
      ppct: 11
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews.
      aug:
        au:
          Hartling, Lisa
          Featherstone, Robin
          Nuspl, Megan
          Shave, Kassi
          Dryden, Donna M.
          Vandermeer, Ben
        affil: Cochrane Child Health, University of Alberta, ECHA4-472, 11405-87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada
      sug:
      ab: Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are an important source of information about healthcare interventions. A key component of a well-conducted SR is a comprehensive literature search. There is limited evidence on the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies, and dissertations and their impact on results of meta-analyses.Methods: Our sample included SRs from three Cochrane Review Groups: Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI), Infectious Diseases (ID), Developmental Psychosocial and Learning Problems (DPLP) (n = 129). Outcomes included: 1) proportion of reviews that searched for and included each study type; 2) proportion of relevant studies represented by each study type; and 3) impact on results and conclusions of the primary meta-analysis for each study type.Results: Most SRs searched for non-English studies; however, these were included in only 12% of reviews and represented less than 5% of included studies. There was a change in results in only four reviews (total sample = 129); in two cases the change did not have an impact on the statistical or clinical significance of results. Most SRs searched for unpublished studies but the majority did not include these (only 6%) and they represented 2% of included studies. In most cases the impact of including unpublished studies was small; a substantial impact was observed in one case that relied solely on unpublished data. Few reviews in ARI (9%) and ID (3%) searched for dissertations compared to 65% in DPLP. Overall, dissertations were included in only nine SRs and represented less than 2% of included studies. In the majority of cases the change in results was negligible or small; in the case where a large change was noted, the estimate was more conservative without dissertations.Conclusions: The majority of SRs searched for non-English and unpublished studies; however, these represented a small proportion of included studies and rarely impacted the results and conclusions of the review. Inclusion of these study types may have an impact in situations where there are few relevant studies, or where there are questionable vested interests in the published literature. We found substantial variation in whether SRs searched for dissertations; in most reviews that included dissertations, these had little impact on results.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N