ReviewTrials2010
Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review.
Review in Trials, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 149 papers, 34 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
149 citing papers in PubMed, 34 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 450 citations in OpenAlex.
- Proteins targeting ischaemic-reperfusion injury and repair after myocardial infarction: a systematic literature review.Cardiovascular research · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Colorectal Cancer Risk Loci: Prognostic Factors for Clinical Outcomes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Telemedicine for Musculoskeletal Disorders: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- The Perils of Misinterpreting and Misusing "Publication Bias" in Meta-analyses: An Education Review on Funnel Plot-Based Methods.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Pooled it
- Supporting translation of research evidence into practice-the use of Normalisation Process Theory to assess and inform implementation within randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.Implementation science : IS · 2023Pooled it
- Respiratory health effects of e-cigarette substitution for tobacco cigarettes: a systematic review.Harm reduction journal · 2023Pooled it
- What is the impact of daily oral supplementation of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) plus calcium on the incidence of hip fracture in older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of older people nursing · 2023Pooled it
- Quality Reporting of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis According to PRISMA 2020 Guidelines: Results from Recently Published Papers in theKorean journal of radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy: Updated comparisons and meta-analyses of newer versus older trials.PLoS medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Co-Production within Child and Adolescent Mental Health: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Fecal DNA methylation markers for detecting stages of colorectal cancer and its precursors: a systematic review.Clinical epigenetics · 2020Pooled it
- Bias and Loss to Follow-Up in Cardiovascular Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2020Pooled it
- Hiding negative trials by pooling them: a secondary analysis of pooled-trials publication bias in FDA-registered antidepressant trials.Psychological medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Intravenous Brivaracetam in the Treatment of Status Epilepticus: A Systematic Review.CNS drugs · 2019Pooled it
- Treatment-Resistant to Antipsychotics: A Resistance to Everything? Psychotherapy in Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia and Nonaffective Psychosis: A 25-Year Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Pooled it
- Treatment after traumatic shoulder dislocation: a systematic review with a network meta-analysis.British journal of sports medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis.Intensive care medicine · 2018Pooled it
- EAP viewpoint on unpublished data from paediatric clinical trials.European journal of pediatrics · 2018Guideline
- Prognostic DNA methylation markers for sporadic colorectal cancer: a systematic review.Clinical epigenetics · 2018Pooled it
89 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reporting bias represents a major problem in the assessment of health care interventions. Several prominent cases have been described in the literature, for example, in the reporting of trials of antidepressants, Class I anti-arrhythmic drugs, and selective COX-2 inhibitors. The aim of this narrative review is to gain an overview of reporting bias in the medical literature, focussing on publication bias and selective outcome reporting. We explore whether these types of bias have been shown in areas beyond the well-known cases noted above, in order to gain an impression of how widespread the problem is. For this purpose, we screened relevant articles on reporting bias that had previously been obtained by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in the context of its health technology assessment reports and other research work, together with the reference lists of these articles.We identified reporting bias in 40 indications comprising around 50 different pharmacological, surgical (e.g. vacuum-assisted closure therapy), diagnostic (e.g. ultrasound), and preventive (e.g. cancer vaccines) interventions. Regarding pharmacological interventions, cases of reporting bias were, for example, identified in the treatment of the following conditions: depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, anxiety disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Alzheimer's disease, pain, migraine, cardiovascular disease, gastric ulcers, irritable bowel syndrome, urinary incontinence, atopic dermatitis, diabetes mellitus type 2, hypercholesterolaemia, thyroid disorders, menopausal symptoms, various types of cancer (e.g. ovarian cancer and melanoma), various types of infections (e.g. HIV, influenza and Hepatitis B), and acute trauma. Many cases involved the withholding of study data by manufacturers and regulatory agencies or the active attempt by manufacturers to suppress publication. The ascertained effects of reporting bias included the overestimation of efficacy and the underestimation of safety risks of interventions.In conclusion, reporting bias is a widespread phenomenon in the medical literature. Mandatory prospective registration of trials and public access to study data via results databases need to be introduced on a worldwide scale. This will allow for an independent review of research data, help fulfil ethical obligations towards patients, and ensure a basis for fully-informed decision making in the health care system.
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.