GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence--publication bias.

By G. Guyatt, Andrew D. Oxman, Victor M. Montori, G. Vist, Regina Kunz, J. Brożek, P. Alonso-Coello, B. Djulbegovic, D. Atkins, Y. Falck-Ytter and 5 more. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011

1,582 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological therapies for children with chronic pain. (2014, background): “Two authors extracted data and any discrepancies were arbitrated by a third author.”
Network Meta-Analysis: An Introduction for Clinicians (2016, background): “Publication bias may be suspected if direct evidence comes from a small number of commercially funded studies [32], or based on quantitative assessment using contour-enhanced funnel plots [33].”
Systematic review of physical activity and health in the early years (aged 0-4 years). (2012, methodology): “Within age groups, at least 2 reviewers (S.C.G., M.E.K., B.W.T., and A.G.L.) independently assessed the quality of the evidence for all of the studies (Guyatt et al. 2011a, 2011b, 2011c, 2011d, 2011e, 2011f, 2011g, 2011h; Balshem et al. 2011).”
CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis (2020, background): “• The meta-analysis is based on a small number of positive early findings, for example for a drug newly introduced on the market (as early evidence is likely to overestimate its efficacy and safety) [31].”