Publication bias against negative results from clinical trials: three of the seven deadly sins (original) (raw)

Nature Clinical Practice Neurology volume 3, pages 590–591 (2007)Cite this article

Strong evidence indicates a publication bias against negative results of clinical trials. Assessment of the number of meeting abstracts that turn into full papers reveals that a trial showing a benefit of a drug or device has a much greater chance of full publication than does a trial showing no benefit.1,2 Further, publications of trials approved by institutional review boards are frequently characterized by selective outcome reporting and high rates of failure to present null or negative results.3,4 The failure to publish negative results leads to an accumulated literature favoring benefits of treatments. This bias distorts systematic reviews and meta-analyses, encourages the use of questionable treatments, and stifles the implementation of a true evidence-based medicine. Who is to blame? Journal editors, commercial sponsors, and investigators (the would-be authors) all stand accused.

Journal editors are often blamed by investigators, and as a former Editor one of us confesses to that bias. In a competitive journal, space mandates that a majority of submitted manuscripts must be rejected, and many good articles including those describing methodologically sound studies with positive and negative results are among them. Editors love articles that capture the interest of readers, that attract mention in The New York Times or Science news pages, and that garner citations. Editors are guilty of pride. Studies have shown, however, that inability to find an editor willing to publish negative results is rarely a problem.5 A study of papers submitted to JAMA showed only a tendency and not a statistically significant editorial bias against negative results.6 The 'knee-jerk' response that the journals are the primary villains in publication bias is incorrect.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

$189.00 per year

only $15.75 per issue

Buy this article

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Additional access options:

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Liebeskind DS et al. (2006) Evidence of publication bias in reporting acute stroke clinical trials. Neurology 67: 973–979
    Article Google Scholar
  2. Scherer RW et al. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2 Art No.: MR000005. DOI:10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3.
  3. Dickersin K et al. (1992) Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 267: 374–378
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  4. Chan A-W et al. (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291: 2457–2465
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  5. Dickersin K (2005) Publication bias: recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In Publication Bias in Meta-analysis—Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments, 11–33 (Eds Rothstein HR et al.) New York: John Wiley & Sons
    Google Scholar
  6. Olson CM et al. (2002) Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 28: 2825–2828
    Article Google Scholar
  7. Lexchin J et al. (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326: 1167–1170
    Article Google Scholar
  8. Rosenberg RN et al. (2001) Reporting clinical trials: full access to all the data. Arch Neurol 59: 27–28
    Article Google Scholar
  9. Korn D and Ehringhaus S (2006) Principles for strengthening the integrity of clinical research. PloS Clin Trials 1: e1 [DOI.1371/journal.pctr.0010001]
    Article Google Scholar
  10. Dickersin K and Rennie D (2003) Registering clinical trials. JAMA 290: 516–523
    Article Google Scholar
  11. Zarin D et al. (2005) Trial registration at clinicaltrials.gov between May and October 2005. N Engl J Med 353: 2779–2787
    Article CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RT Johnson is University Distinguished Service Professor of Neurology, Microbiology and Neuroscience, and K Dickersin is Professor of Epidemiology and Director of the Center for Clinical Trials, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.,
    Richard T Johnson & Kay Dickersin

Authors

  1. Richard T Johnson
  2. Kay Dickersin

Corresponding author

Correspondence toRichard T Johnson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Johnson, R., Dickersin, K. Publication bias against negative results from clinical trials: three of the seven deadly sins.Nat Rev Neurol 3, 590–591 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpneuro0618

Download citation

This article is cited by