Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects - PubMed (original) (raw)
Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects
J M Stern et al. BMJ. 1997.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the extent to which publication is influenced by study outcome.
Design: A cohort of studies submitted to a hospital ethics committee over 10 years were examined retrospectively by reviewing the protocols and by questionnaire. The primary method of analysis was Cox's proportional hazards model.
Setting: University hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Studies: 748 eligible studies submitted to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee between 1979 and 1988.
Main outcome measures: Time to publication.
Results: Response to the questionnaire was received for 520 (70%) of the eligible studies. Of the 218 studies analysed with tests of significance, those with positive results (P < 0.05) were much more likely to be published than those with negative results (P > or = 0.10) (hazard ratio 2.32 (95% confidence interval 1.47 to 3.66), P = 0.0003), with a significantly shorter time to publication (median 4.8 v 8.0 years). This finding was even stronger for the group of 130 clinical trials (hazard ratio 3.13 (1.76 to 5.58). P = 0.0001), with median times to publication of 4.7 and 8.0 years respectively. These results were not materially changed after adjusting for other significant predictors of publication. Studies with indefinite conclusions (0.05 < or = P < 0.10) tended to have an even lower publication rate and longer time to publication than studies with negative results (hazard ratio 0.39 (0.13 to 1.12), P = 0.08). For the 103 studies in which outcome was rated qualitatively, there was no clear cut evidence of publication bias, although the number of studies in this group was not large.
Conclusions: This study confirms the evidence of publication bias found in other studies and identifies delay in publication as an additional important factor. The study results support the need for prospective registration of trials to avoid publication bias and also support restricting the selection of trials to those started before a common date in undertaking systematic reviews.
Comment in
- Meta-analysis and the meta-epidemiology of clinical research. Registration of trials should be required by editors and registering agencies.
Julian D. Julian D. BMJ. 1998 Jan 24;316(7127):311. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7127.311b. BMJ. 1998. PMID: 9472545 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
- Publication bias in clinical research.
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Easterbrook PJ, et al. Lancet. 1991 Apr 13;337(8746):867-72. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y. Lancet. 1991. PMID: 1672966 - Non-publication and publication bias in reproductive medicine: a cohort analysis.
Lensen S, Jordan V, Showell M, Showell E, Shen V, Venetis C, Farquhar C. Lensen S, et al. Hum Reprod. 2017 Aug 1;32(8):1658-1666. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex236. Hum Reprod. 2017. PMID: 28854591 - Fate of biomedical research protocols and publication bias in France: retrospective cohort study.
Decullier E, Lhéritier V, Chapuis F. Decullier E, et al. BMJ. 2005 Jul 2;331(7507):19. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38488.385995.8F. Epub 2005 Jun 20. BMJ. 2005. PMID: 15967761 Free PMC article. - Publication and non-publication of drug trial results: a 10-year cohort of trials in Norwegian general practice.
Brænd AM, Straand J, Jakobsen RB, Klovning A. Brænd AM, et al. BMJ Open. 2016 Apr 11;6(4):e010535. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010535. BMJ Open. 2016. PMID: 27067893 Free PMC article. Review. - Retrospective cohort study highlighted outcome reporting bias in UK publicly funded trials.
Matthews GA, Dumville JC, Hewitt CE, Torgerson DJ. Matthews GA, et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1317-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.013. Epub 2011 Sep 1. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011. PMID: 21889307 Review.
Cited by
- Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries.
Schmucker C, Schell LK, Portalupi S, Oeller P, Cabrera L, Bassler D, Schwarzer G, Scherer RW, Antes G, von Elm E, Meerpohl JJ; OPEN consortium. Schmucker C, et al. PLoS One. 2014 Dec 23;9(12):e114023. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114023. eCollection 2014. PLoS One. 2014. PMID: 25536072 Free PMC article. - A study of the impact of thirteen celebrity suicides on subsequent suicide rates in South Korea from 2005 to 2009.
Fu KW, Chan CH. Fu KW, et al. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e53870. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053870. Epub 2013 Jan 16. PLoS One. 2013. PMID: 23342026 Free PMC article. - Contextualising merit and integrity within human research.
Pieper I, Thomson CJ. Pieper I, et al. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2011 Sep;29(4):15.1-10. doi: 10.1007/BF03351329. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2011. PMID: 22397090 - Impact of funding on biomedical research: a retrospective cohort study.
Decullier E, Chapuis F. Decullier E, et al. BMC Public Health. 2006 Jun 22;6:165. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-6-165. BMC Public Health. 2006. PMID: 16792794 Free PMC article. - The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey.
Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA. Ioannidis JP, et al. CMAJ. 2007 Apr 10;176(8):1091-6. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.060410. CMAJ. 2007. PMID: 17420491 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical