SynthesisJournal of clinical epidemiology2015
Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prevalence and risk factors of diarrhea among under-five children in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical trials registries are underused in the pregnancy and childbirth literature: a systematic review of the top 20 journals.BMC research notes · 2016Pooled it
- Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews.BMC health services research · 2014Pooled it
- A scoping review of activities intended to reduce publication bias in randomised trials.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Open science practices in traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research: A path to enhanced transparency and collaboration.Integrative medicine research · 2024Article
- Factors affecting the independence and reliability of Science and how these are perceived.SN social sciences · 2023Article
- Interventions for improving the design and conduct of scientific research: A scoping review protocol.NIHR open research · 2022Article
- Bias in Medicine: Lessons Learned and Mitigation Strategies.JACC. Basic to translational science · 2021Review
- Visceral Origin: An Underestimated Source of Neck Pain. A Systematic Scoping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Article
- A study of the value of requesting information from drug manufacturers for systematic reviews; 9 years of experience from the drug effectiveness review project.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Article
- Prevention of selective outcome reporting: let us start from the beginning.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016Review
- DRY NEEDLING IN SUBJECTS WITH MUSCULAR TRIGGER POINTS IN THE LOWER QUARTER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW.International journal of sports physical therapy · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent or reduce publication and related biases. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingWe searched multiple databases and performed manual searches using terms related to publication bias and known interventions against publication bias. We dually reviewed citations and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized results by intervention and outcomes measured and graded the quality of the evidence (QoE).
resultsWe located 38 eligible studies. The use of prospective trial registries (PTR) has increased since 2005 (seven studies, moderate QoE); however, positive outcome-reporting bias is prevalent (14 studies, low QoE), and information in nonmandatory fields is vague (10 studies, low QoE). Disclosure of financial conflict of interest (CoI) is inadequate (five studies, low QoE). Blinding peer reviewers may reduce geographical bias (two studies, very low QoE), and open-access publishing does not discriminate against authors from low-income countries (two studies, very low QoE).
conclusionThe use of PTR and CoI disclosures is increasing; however, the adequacy of their use requires improvement. The effect of open-access publication and blinding of peer reviewers on publication bias is unclear, as is the effect of other interventions such as electronic publication and authors' rights to publish their results.
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.