• Vadim V Yerokhin, Branden K Carr, Guy Sneed, and Matt Vassar.
• Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W. 17th St., Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA. vadimyerokhin@gmail.com.
• BMC Res Notes. 2016 Oct 21; 9 (1): 475.

BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses that do not include unpublished data in their analyses may be prone to publication bias, which in some cases has been shown to have deleterious consequences on determining the efficacy of interventions.MethodsWe retrieved systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the past 8 years (January 1, 2007-December 31, 2015) from the top 20 journals in the Pregnancy and Childbirth literature, as rated by Google Scholar's h5-index. A meta-epidemiologic analysis was performed to determine the frequency with which authors searched clinical trials registries for unpublished data.ResultsA PubMed search retrieved 372 citations, 297 of which were deemed to be either a systematic review or a meta-analysis and were included for analysis. Twelve (4 %) of these searched at least one WHO-approved clinical trials registry or clinicaltrials.gov.ConclusionSystematic reviews and meta-analyses published in pregnancy and childbirth journals do not routinely report searches of clinical trials registries. Including these registries in systematic reviews may be a promising avenue to limit publication bias if registry searches locate unpublished trial data that could be used in the systematic review.

9 keywords...

hide…