Publication bias: The hidden threat to systematic literature reviews

Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are essential in healthcare, serving as the bedrock of evidence-based practice. They provide a rigorous, unbiased, and transparent assessment of existing research, allowing stakeholders – policymakers, clinicians, and others – to make well-informed decisions. By evaluating the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of interventions, SLRs not only demonstrate the value of pharmaceutical products but also guide policy development, improve patient access to treatments, and highlight areas for future research.

Policymakers depend on these reviews to ensure that healthcare interventions are both effective and economically viable, ultimately facilitating patient access to necessary treatments. For pharmaceutical companies, SLRs are a strategic imperative. By providing a rigorous and transparent assessment of a drug's efficacy and safety, SLRs pave the way for market access and commercial success, as well as support clinical guidelines, regulatory decisions, and healthcare policy. This meticulous evaluation strengthens a product's standing in the eyes of regulators and payers, significantly influencing its journey from development to patient use.

However, the presence of publication bias casts a long shadow over the reliability of SLRs and the decisions they support. In this blog, Suki Kandola, Global Head of Value & Access at Envision Pharma Group, explores the profound effects of publication bias on systematic reviews, its implications for pharmaceutical companies, and strategies to address this pervasive issue.