Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries
Масштаб непубликации в когортах исследований, одобренных комитетами по этике исследований или включённых в реестры клинических испытаний
2014-12-23
SCID: 54.1/pzm8cs6m
Discuss with AI
dissemination biasnon-publicationrandom-effects meta-analysissystematic reviewtrial registries
Figures from the paper
Abstract (AI)
BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.
Key Findings
1
Phase III trials were more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.6–2.5).
2
Publication rates varied widely across cohorts: 22–72% for studies approved by research ethics committees and 13–90% for registered studies.
3
REC-approved studies with statistically significant results were more likely to be published than studies without significant results (pooled OR 2.8, 95% CI 2.2–3.5).
4
The findings indicate substantial non-publication and potential dissemination bias, threatening the validity of systematic reviews and evidence-based decisions.
5
The weighted pooled publication proportion was 46.2% for REC-approved studies and 54.2% for studies included in trial registries, with very high heterogeneity.
Research Object
Cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries
Research Subject
The extent of full peer-reviewed journal publication and study characteristics associated with publication
Publication Details
Publication Date
2014-12-23
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Open access PDF
Access Type
Author Information
Download PDF
Subscribe to digest