ArticlePloS one2014
Role of editorial and peer review processes in publication bias: analysis of drug trials submitted to eight medical journals.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 5 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Adenosine as an Active Ingredient in Topical Preparations Against Hair Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Published Clinical Trials.Biomolecules · 2025Pooled it
- Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Changes in the Use of Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in Clinical Trials for Older Patients with Cancer over Time.The oncologist · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Industry sponsorship and research outcome.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Global Authorship Representation in Otolaryngology Clinical Trials.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025Article
- Reputation shortcoming in academic publishing.PloS one · 2025Article
- Sample Size Considerations for Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Named Entity Recognition Tasks: Methodological Study.JMIR AI · 2024Article
- Prospective longitudinal associations between adverse childhood experiences and adult mental health outcomes: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Time to Publication and Time-Lag Publication Bias for Randomized Trials on Connective Tissue Diseases.ACR open rheumatology · 2023Article
- Nudging accurate scientific communication.PloS one · 2023Article
- On the Utility of ToxCast-Based Predictive Models to Evaluate Potential Metabolic Disruption by Environmental Chemicals.Environmental health perspectives · 2022Review
- Registry versus publication: discrepancy of primary outcomes and possible outcome reporting bias in child and adolescent mental health.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2022Observational
- Publication bias in diagnostic imaging: conference abstracts with positive conclusions are more likely to be published.European radiology · 2020Article
- Assessment of Consistency Between Peer-Reviewed Publications and Clinical Trial Registries.JAMA ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Common Topics of Publication and Levels of Evidence in the Current Hand Surgery Literature.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2019Article
- Early phase and adaptive design clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of early phase trials.Rheumatology advances in practice · 2018Article
- Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results.Biochemia medica · 2017Review
- Bias in cervical total disc replacement trials.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2017Review
- No difference found in time to publication by statistical significance of trial results: a methodological review.JRSM open · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPublication bias is generally ascribed to authors and sponsors failing to submit studies with negative results, but may also occur after submission. We evaluated whether submitted manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with drugs are more likely to be accepted if they report positive results.
methodsManuscripts submitted from January 2010 through April 2012 to one general medical journal (BMJ) and seven specialty journals (Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, British Journal of Ophthalmology, Gut, Heart, Thorax, Diabetologia, and Journal of Hepatology) were included, if at least one study arm assessed the efficacy or safety of a drug and a statistical test was used to evaluate treatment effects. Publication status was retrospectively retrieved from submission systems or provided by journals. Sponsorship and trial results were extracted from manuscripts and classified according to predefined criteria. Main outcome measure was acceptance for publication.
resultsOf 15,972 manuscripts submitted, 472 (3.0%) were drug RCTs, of which 98 (20.8%) were published. Among submitted drug RCTs, 287 (60.8%) had positive and 185 (39.2%) negative results. Of these, 60 (20.9%) and 38 (20.5%), respectively, were published. Manuscripts on non-industry trials (n = 213) reported positive results in 138 (64.8%) manuscripts, compared to 71 (47.7%) on industry-supported trials (n = 149), and 78 (70.9%) on industry-sponsored trials (n = 110). Twenty-seven (12.7%) non-industry trials were published, compared to 27 (18.1%) industry-supported and 44 (40.0%) industry-sponsored trials. After adjustment for other trial characteristics, manuscripts reporting positive results were not more likely to be published (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.66). Submission to specialty journals, sample size, multicentre status, journal impact factor, and corresponding authors from Europe or US were significantly associated with publication.
conclusionsFor the selected journals, there was no tendency to preferably publish manuscripts on drug RCTs that reported positive results, suggesting that publication bias may occur mainly prior to submission.
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.