Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23692820›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2013

Defining publication bias: protocol for a systematic review of highly cited articles and proposal for a new framework.

Katharina Felicitas Müller, Matthias Briel, Alexandra D'Amario, Jos Kleijnen, Ana Marusic, Elizabeth Wager, Gerd Antes, Erik von Elm, Britta Lang, Edith Motschall and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Short-Term Memory, Inhibition, and Attention in Developmental Stuttering: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Fraud in publications-retractions and deterrents.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2019
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Katharina Felicitas MüllerCenter for Pediatric Clinical Studies, University Children's Hospital Tuebingen, Frondsbergstr. 23, 72070, Tuebingen, Germany.
Matthias Briel
Alexandra D'Amario
Jos Kleijnen
Ana Marusic
Elizabeth Wager
Gerd Antes
Erik von Elm
Britta Lang
Edith Motschall
Viktoria Gloy
Guido Schwarzer
Doug Altman
Joerg J Meerpohl
Dirk Bassler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelective publication of studies, which is commonly called publication bias, is widely recognized. Over the years a new nomenclature for other types of bias related to non-publication or distortion related to the dissemination of research findings has been developed. However, several of these different biases are often still summarized by the term 'publication bias'. METHODS/

designAs part of the OPEN Project (To Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:- To systematically review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies and to present the various definitions of biases related to the dissemination of research findings contained in the articles identified.- To develop and discuss a new framework on nomenclature of various aspects of distortion in the dissemination process that leads to public availability of research findings in an international group of experts in the context of the OPEN Project.We will systematically search Web of Knowledge for highly cited articles that provide a definition of biases related to the dissemination of research findings. A specifically designed data extraction form will be developed and pilot-tested. Working in teams of two, we will independently extract relevant information from each eligible article.For the development of a new framework we will construct an initial table listing different levels and different hazards en route to making research findings public. An international group of experts will iteratively review the table and reflect on its content until no new insights emerge and consensus has been reached. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid-2013. This systematic review together with the results of other systematic reviews of the OPEN project will serve as a basis for the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the assessment and prevention of publication bias.

Indexed as

Access to InformationBiasMeta-Analysis as TopicPublication BiasResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicTerminology as TopicConsensusData MiningHumansInformation Dissemination

Identifiers

PMID23692820
PMCPMC3667005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.