← Older revision
Revision as of 00:54, 29 April 2015
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 1:
Line 1:
−
Publication bias, a type of [[reporting bias]], is defined by the Cochrane Collaboration <ref name= "Cochrane2011">Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D (editors). Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org</ref> as "publication or non-publication of research findings, depending on the nature and direction of the results" and by Dickersin <ref name= "Dickersin1990"> Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990, Mar 9;263(10):1385-1389.</ref> as "the tendency on the parts of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study finding." It was first postulated in the psychology <ref name= "Sterling1959">Sterling TD. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance – or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1959;54:30-34.</ref> and education <ref name= "Smith1980">Smith ML. Publication bias and meta-analysis . Evaluation Educ. 1980;4:22-24.</ref> literature, but has since been shown to be a factor in medicine as well.<ref name= "Simes1987">Simes RJ. Confronting publication bias: a cohort design for meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 1987;6:11-29.</ref>
+
Publication bias, a type of [[reporting bias]], is defined by the Cochrane Collaboration<ref name= "Cochrane2011">Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D (editors). Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org</ref> as "publication or non-publication of research findings, depending on the nature and direction of the results" and by Dickersin<ref name= "Dickersin1990"> Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990, Mar 9;263(10):1385-1389.</ref> as "the tendency on the parts of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study finding." It was first postulated in the psychology<ref name= "Sterling1959">Sterling TD. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance – or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1959;54:30-34.</ref> and education<ref name= "Smith1980">Smith ML. Publication bias and meta-analysis . Evaluation Educ. 1980;4:22-24.</ref> literature, but has since been shown to be a factor in medicine as well.<ref name= "Simes1987">Simes RJ. Confronting publication bias: a cohort design for meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 1987;6:11-29.</ref>
−
==
Evidence of
publication
bias
==
+
==
Reasons for non-
publication
<ref name "Dickersin2011">Dickersin K, Chalmers I. Recognising, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the WHO. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):532-538</ref>
==
+
* Researchers report reason for not writing up negative results is lack of interest
+
* Peer-reviewers more likely to recommend studies with positive results
+
* Rejection of manuscripts with negative results infrequently cited
+
* Source of Funding is significantly correlated with publication
+
- Drug-company sponsored research less likely to be published
+
- Drug-company sponsored research more likely to favor sponsor
== Calls for clinical trial registration ==
== Calls for clinical trial registration ==
−
One mechanism that has been proposed to counteract publication bias is mandatory [[Clinical trial registry|registration of
all
clinical trials]] prior to their onset. In 2004, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) published a statement announcing that their member journals would begin requiring "... as a condition of consideration for publication, registration in a public trials registry. Trials must register at or before the onset of patient enrollment."<ref name= "DeAngelis2004">DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical Trial Registration: A Statement From the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 2004;292(11):1363-1364. </ref> The 2013 World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki included the statement that "Every research study involving human subjects must be registered in a publicly accessible database before recruitment of the first subject."<ref name= "Helsinki2013">World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. </ref> Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that this requirement is frequently ignored. As an example, a study of cardiovascular trial registration
that showed that
+
One mechanism that has been proposed to counteract publication bias is mandatory [[Clinical trial registry|registration of clinical trials]] prior to their onset. In 2004, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) published a statement announcing that their member journals would begin requiring "... as a condition of consideration for publication, registration in a public trials registry. Trials must register at or before the onset of patient enrollment."<ref name= "DeAngelis2004">DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical Trial Registration: A Statement From the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 2004;292(11):1363-1364. </ref> The 2013 World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki included the statement that "Every research study involving human subjects must be registered in a publicly accessible database before recruitment of the first subject."<ref name= "Helsinki2013">World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191-2194. </ref>
+
+
Unfortunately, recent studies have shown that this requirement is frequently ignored. As an example, a
recent
study of cardiovascular trial registration
<ref name= "Edmin2015"> Emdin C, Odutayo A, Hsiao A, et al. Association of Cardiovascular Trial Registration With Positive Study Findings: Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials (ESORT). JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(2):304-307. </ref> found:
+
* Less than 50% of trials reported as registered
+
* Registered trials tended to be larger
+
* Registered trials more likely to "report strong methodological characteristics"
+
* Registered trials were less likely to report positive findings (52% vs 70.5%)
== References: ==
== References: ==