Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25536072›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries.

Christine Schmucker, Lisa K Schell, Susan Portalupi, Patrick Oeller, Laura Cabrera, Dirk Bassler, Guido Schwarzer, Roberta W Scherer, Gerd Antes, Erik von Elm and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 93 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors.

Christine SchmuckerGerman Cochrane Centre, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Berliner Allee 29, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.
Lisa K SchellGerman Cochrane Centre, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Berliner Allee 29, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.
Susan PortalupiGerman Cochrane Centre, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Berliner Allee 29, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.
Patrick OellerGerman Cochrane Centre, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Berliner Allee 29, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.
Laura CabreraGerman Cochrane Centre, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Berliner Allee 29, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.
Dirk BasslerDepartment of Neonatology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Guido SchwarzerInstitute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Roberta W SchererUS Cochrane Center, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Gerd AntesGerman Cochrane Centre, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Berliner Allee 29, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.
Erik von ElmCochrane Switzerland, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), University Hospital Lausanne, Biopôle 2, Route de la Corniche 10, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Joerg J MeerpohlGerman Cochrane Centre, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Berliner Allee 29, 79110 Freiburg, Germany.
OPEN consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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

findingsFour 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%, I2 = 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%, I2 = 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%.

conclusionsA 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.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicEthics Committees, ResearchPublicationsRegistriesCohort StudiesHumansProbabilityPublication BiasTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID25536072
PMCPMC4275183

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.