Evidence-based public health: The importance of finding 'difficult to locate' public health and health promotion intervention studies for systematic reviews.

Systematic reviews are used to assess and summarize research, and therefore are instrumental to decision-making in public health and health promotion policy and practice. The validity of the results of a systematic review is highly dependent on the data collection methods used. This includes a systematic search to locate all relevant studies, which is often a difficult and challenging task. A great deal of public health and health promotion research has been conducted, but only some of it is available in the public domain, and overall the literature is widely dispersed. This paper aims to highlight some of the issues surrounding publication bias, including database bias, language bias and grey literature bias, and to illustrate these issues with public health examples where available. Publication bias is defined here as the publication or non-publication of research findings based on the nature and direction of results. Methodology to prevent or minimize publication bias is described, including an outline of the role of the Cochrane Health Promotion and Public Health Field (the HP&PH Field) in improving access to ‘difficult to locate’ health promotion and public health intervention studies and effectiveness reviews.

[1]  S. Oliver,et al.  Using Research For Effective Health Promotion , 2001 .

[2]  T. Fahey,et al.  The type and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in UK public health journals. , 1995, Journal of public health medicine.

[3]  D. Moher,et al.  Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews , 1996, The Lancet.

[4]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews , 1994 .

[5]  J. Sterne,et al.  How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[6]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Publication and related biases: a review , 2000 .

[7]  S. Lelean Learning about research. , 1977, Nursing times.

[8]  G. Grégoire,et al.  Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias? , 1995, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  N. Vetter Research publication in developing countries. , 2003, Journal of public health medicine.

[10]  C. Lengeler,et al.  Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German , 1997, The Lancet.

[11]  A R Jadad,et al.  What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  Ian F Tannock,et al.  Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. , 2003, JAMA.

[13]  S Chapman,et al.  Health promoting schools and health promotion in schools: two systematic reviews. , 1999, Health technology assessment.

[14]  Kay Dickersin,et al.  Registering clinical trials. , 2003, JAMA.

[15]  K. Dickersin,et al.  Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. , 1992, JAMA.

[16]  S. Oliver,et al.  Effectiveness Reviews in Health Promotion , 1999 .

[17]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? , 2000, The Lancet.