SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2009
Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies.
Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
64 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Publication Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials of Hypospadias Surgical Repair: A Systematic Review.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2025Pooled it
- Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Sexually transmitted infections in the middle east and North Africa: comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Publication bias in pharmacogenetics of adverse reaction to antiseizure drugs: An umbrella review and a meta-epidemiological study.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Paranormal beliefs and cognitive function: A systematic review and assessment of study quality across four decades of research.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Machine learning applications to clinical decision support in neurosurgery: an artificial intelligence augmented systematic review.Neurosurgical review · 2020Pooled it
- Chinese Taoist Cognitive Therapy for Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety in Adults in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Pooled it
- Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Impact of high ambient temperature on unintentional injuries in high-income countries: a narrative systematic literature review.BMJ open · 2016Pooled it
- Health impact of external funding for HIV, tuberculosis and malaria: systematic review.Health policy and planning · 2014Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Protocol: Deterrence-Oriented Counterterrorism Interventions in OECD Countries for Domestic Terrorist Attacks: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Assessment of Selective Reporting Biases in Studies Included in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- An investigation of discrepancies in outcome reporting and selective reporting bias in interrupted time series studies of health interventions: a methodological study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and systems biology analysis in stem cell research and therapeutics development.Stem cells translational medicine · 2025Review
- Analysis of indications for selectively missing results in comparative registry-based studies in medicine: a meta-research study.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Systematic review of machine learning applications using nonoptical motion tracking in surgery.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Meta-analytic prospective associations between self-esteem and eating disorders appear to be spurious: a reanalysis and comment on Krauss et al. (2023).Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Bridging theory and data: A computational workflow for cultural evolution.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Rates of positive vs negative studies in the spine literature.Interventional pain medicine · 2024Article
4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe validity of research synthesis is threatened if published studies comprise a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted. We conducted a meta-analysis to ascertain the strength and consistency of the association between study results and formal publication.
methodsThe Cochrane Methodology Register Database, MEDLINE and other electronic bibliographic databases were searched (to May 2009) to identify empirical studies that tracked a cohort of studies and reported the odds of formal publication by study results. Reference lists of retrieved articles were also examined for relevant studies. Odds ratios were used to measure the association between formal publication and significant or positive results. Included studies were separated into subgroups according to starting time of follow-up, and results from individual cohort studies within the subgroups were quantitatively pooled.
resultsWe identified 12 cohort studies that followed up research from inception, four that included trials submitted to a regulatory authority, 28 that assessed the fate of studies presented as conference abstracts, and four cohort studies that followed manuscripts submitted to journals. The pooled odds ratio of publication of studies with positive results, compared to those without positive results (publication bias) was 2.78 (95% CI: 2.10 to 3.69) in cohorts that followed from inception, 5.00 (95% CI: 2.01 to 12.45) in trials submitted to regulatory authority, 1.70 (95% CI: 1.44 to 2.02) in abstract cohorts, and 1.06 (95% CI: 0.80 to 1.39) in cohorts of manuscripts.
conclusionDissemination of research findings is likely to be a biased process. Publication bias appears to occur early, mainly before the presentation of findings at conferences or submission of manuscripts to journals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.