Cargando…

The relationship between study findings and publication outcome in anesthesia research following implementation of mandatory trial registration: A systematic review of publication bias

Previously, we reviewed 1052 randomized-controlled trial abstracts presented at the American Society of Anesthesiologists annual meetings from 2001–2004. We found significant positive publication bias in the period examined, with the odds ratio for abstracts with positive results proceeding to journ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chong, Simon W., Imberger, Georgina, Karahalios, Amalia, Wang, Andrew, Burggraf, Millicent, Louis, Maleck, Liskaser, Grace M., Bianco, Anthony, Peyton, Philip J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10218755/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37235595
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282839
Descripción
Sumario:Previously, we reviewed 1052 randomized-controlled trial abstracts presented at the American Society of Anesthesiologists annual meetings from 2001–2004. We found significant positive publication bias in the period examined, with the odds ratio for abstracts with positive results proceeding to journal publication over those with null results being 2.01 [95% confidence interval: 1.52, 2.66; P < 0.001]. Mandatory trial registration was introduced in 2005 as a required standard for publication. We sought to examine whether mandatory trial registration has decreased publication bias in the anesthesia and perioperative medicine literature. We reviewed all abstracts from the 2010–2016 American Society of Anesthesiologists meetings that reported on randomized-controlled trials in humans. We scored the result of each abstract as positive or null according to a priori definitions. We systematically searched for any subsequent publication of the studies and calculated the odds ratio for journal publication, comparing positive vs null studies. We compared the odds ratio from the 2010–2016 abstracts (post-mandatory trial registration) with the odds ratio from the 2001–2004 abstracts (pre-mandatory trial registration) as a ratio of odds ratios. We defined a 33% decrease in the odds ratio as significant, corresponding to a new odds ratio of 1.33. We reviewed 9789 abstracts; 1049 met inclusion criteria as randomized-controlled trials, with 542 (51.7%) of the abstracts going on to publication. The odds ratio for abstracts with positive results proceeding to journal publication was 1.28 [95% CI: 0.97, 1.67; P = 0.076]. With adjustment for sample size and abstract quality, the difference in publication rate between positive and null abstracts was statistically significant (odds ratio 1.34; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.76; P = 0.037). The ratio of odds ratios, comparing the odds ratio from the 2010–2016 abstracts (post-mandatory trial registration) to the odds ratio from the 2001–2004 abstracts (pre-mandatory trial registration), was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.43, 0.93); P = 0.021). We present the first study in the anesthesia and perioperative medicine literature that examines and compares publication bias over two discrete periods of time, prior to and after the implementation of mandatory trial registration. Our results suggest that the amount of publication bias has decreased markedly following implementation of mandatory trial registration. However, some positive publication bias in the anesthesia and perioperative medicine literature remains.