Journal Article

Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews

Dryden, Donna M., Featherstone, Robin, Nuspl, Megan, Shave, Kassi, Vandermeer, Ben, Hartling, Lisa

2017

Overview

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 There is limited evidence on the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies, and dissertations and their impact on results of meta-analyses.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 Most SRs searched for unpublished studies but the majority did not include these (only 6%) and they represented 2% of included studies. In most cases the impact of including unpublished studies was small; a substantial impact was observed in one case that relied solely on unpublished data.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 Conclusions The majority of SRs searched for non-English and unpublished studies; however, these represented a small proportion of included studies and rarely impacted the results and conclusions of the review.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.

• Publisher: BioMed Central,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
• Subject: Academic Dissertations as Topic / Bias / Bibliographic data bases / Child / Clinical decision making / Cross-sectional studies / Data collection / Decision making / Dissertations & theses / Evidence-based medicine / Grey literature / Health Sciences / Humans / Information Storage and Retrieval / Knowledge synthesis / Language / Language bias / Literature searching / Medicine / Medicine & Public Health / Meta-analysis / Meta-Analysis as Topic / Publication bias / Publishing / quality / reporting / Research Article / Review Literature as Topic / Statistical Theory and Methods / Statistics for Life Sciences / Systematic reviews / Theory of Medicine/Bioethics