ArticlePloS one2014
Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries.
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.
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
93 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Urine-based diagnostic tests for tuberculosis: a scoping review highlighting unmet diagnostic needs.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Time to publication for results of clinical trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Corticospinal and spinal adaptations following lower limb motor skill training: a meta-analysis with best evidence synthesis.Experimental brain research · 2023Pooled it
- Towards full clinical trial registration and results publication: longitudinal meta-research study in Northwestern and Central Switzerland.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Pooled it
- Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Systematic review: Outcome reporting bias is a problem in high impact factor neurology journals.PloS one · 2017Pooled it
- Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2015Pooled it
- Discontinuation and non-publication of atrial fibrillation clinical trials: A retrospective analysis of 538 trials.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Rating Down for Publication Bias is Rare in Cochrane Reviews: A Descriptive Study.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Article
- Interventional clinical trials registered per million population per country worldwide.Trials · 2025Article
- What happens to qualitative studies initially presented as conference abstracts: A survey among study authors.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- Neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis of the current evidence.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- Is there a female-male self-selection bias in TSST-based reactive stress research?Comprehensive psychoneuroendocrinology · 2025Article
- Campbell's Law Explains the Replication Crisis: Pre-Registration Badges Are History Repeating.Assessment · 2025Article
- Identifying trials run in India that are registered in other clinical trial registries: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
33 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.