Cargando…

Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries

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 bee...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schmucker, Christine, Schell, Lisa K., Portalupi, Susan, Oeller, Patrick, Cabrera, Laura, Bassler, Dirk, Schwarzer, Guido, Scherer, Roberta W., Antes, Gerd, von Elm, Erik, Meerpohl, Joerg J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4275183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25536072
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114023
_version_ 1782350094076477440
author Schmucker, Christine
Schell, Lisa K.
Portalupi, Susan
Oeller, Patrick
Cabrera, Laura
Bassler, Dirk
Schwarzer, Guido
Scherer, Roberta W.
Antes, Gerd
von Elm, Erik
Meerpohl, Joerg J.
author_facet Schmucker, Christine
Schell, Lisa K.
Portalupi, Susan
Oeller, Patrick
Cabrera, Laura
Bassler, Dirk
Schwarzer, Guido
Scherer, Roberta W.
Antes, Gerd
von Elm, Erik
Meerpohl, Joerg J.
author_sort Schmucker, Christine
collection PubMed
description 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%, I(2) = 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%, I(2) = 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4275183
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42751832014-12-31 Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries Schmucker, Christine Schell, Lisa K. Portalupi, Susan Oeller, Patrick Cabrera, Laura Bassler, Dirk Schwarzer, Guido Scherer, Roberta W. Antes, Gerd von Elm, Erik Meerpohl, Joerg J. PLoS One Research Article 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%, I(2) = 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%, I(2) = 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. Public Library of Science 2014-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4275183/ /pubmed/25536072 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114023 Text en © 2014 Schmucker et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Schmucker, Christine
Schell, Lisa K.
Portalupi, Susan
Oeller, Patrick
Cabrera, Laura
Bassler, Dirk
Schwarzer, Guido
Scherer, Roberta W.
Antes, Gerd
von Elm, Erik
Meerpohl, Joerg J.
Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries
title Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries
title_full Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries
title_fullStr Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries
title_full_unstemmed Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries
title_short Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries
title_sort extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4275183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25536072
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114023
work_keys_str_mv AT schmuckerchristine extentofnonpublicationincohortsofstudiesapprovedbyresearchethicscommitteesorincludedintrialregistries
AT schelllisak extentofnonpublicationincohortsofstudiesapprovedbyresearchethicscommitteesorincludedintrialregistries
AT portalupisusan extentofnonpublicationincohortsofstudiesapprovedbyresearchethicscommitteesorincludedintrialregistries
AT oellerpatrick extentofnonpublicationincohortsofstudiesapprovedbyresearchethicscommitteesorincludedintrialregistries
AT cabreralaura extentofnonpublicationincohortsofstudiesapprovedbyresearchethicscommitteesorincludedintrialregistries
AT basslerdirk extentofnonpublicationincohortsofstudiesapprovedbyresearchethicscommitteesorincludedintrialregistries
AT schwarzerguido extentofnonpublicationincohortsofstudiesapprovedbyresearchethicscommitteesorincludedintrialregistries
AT schererrobertaw extentofnonpublicationincohortsofstudiesapprovedbyresearchethicscommitteesorincludedintrialregistries
AT antesgerd extentofnonpublicationincohortsofstudiesapprovedbyresearchethicscommitteesorincludedintrialregistries
AT vonelmerik extentofnonpublicationincohortsofstudiesapprovedbyresearchethicscommitteesorincludedintrialregistries
AT meerpohljoergj extentofnonpublicationincohortsofstudiesapprovedbyresearchethicscommitteesorincludedintrialregistries
AT extentofnonpublicationincohortsofstudiesapprovedbyresearchethicscommitteesorincludedintrialregistries