ArticleBMJ open2015
Evidence-informed recommendations to reduce dissemination bias in clinical research: conclusions from the OPEN (Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) project based on an international consensus meeting.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical testing of the cardiovascular effects of e-cigarette substitution for smoking: a living systematic review.Internal and emergency medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Registration of published randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The threat of serious outcome reporting bias in randomized controlled trials on acute ischemic stroke to evidence synthesis: a meta-epidemiological study.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2025Review
- Article
- Registry versus publication: discrepancy of primary outcomes and possible outcome reporting bias in child and adolescent mental health.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2022Observational
- Nonregistration, discontinuation, and nonpublication of randomized trials: A repeated metaresearch analysis.PLoS medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- A multi-state model analysis of the time from ethical approval to publication of clinical research studies.PloS one · 2020Article
- [Risk of bias in controlled clinical trials].Der Radiologe · 2019Article
- Fraud in publications-retractions and deterrents.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2019Article
- Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2019Article
- Biases Inherent in Studies of Coffee Consumption in Early Pregnancy and the Risks of Subsequent Events.Nutrients · 2018Review
- Article
- Review
- Sponsorship bias and quality of randomised controlled trials in veterinary medicine.BMC veterinary research · 2017Article
- Transparency and public accessibility of clinical trial information in Croatia: how it affects patient participation in clinical trials.Biochemia medica · 2017Article
- Concealing research outcomes: Missing data, negative results and missed publications.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2017Article
- The Need for Formal Evidence Synthesis in Food Policy: A Case Study of Willingness-to-Pay.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDissemination bias in clinical research severely impedes informed decision-making not only for healthcare professionals and patients, but also for funders, research ethics committees, regulatory bodies and other stakeholder groups that make health-related decisions. Decisions based on incomplete and biased evidence cannot only harm people, but may also have huge financial implications by wasting resources on ineffective or harmful diagnostic and therapeutic measures, and unnecessary research. Owing to involvement of multiple stakeholders, it remains easy for any single group to assign responsibility for resolving the problem to others.
objectiveTo develop evidence-informed general and targeted recommendations addressing the various stakeholders involved in knowledge generation and dissemination to help overcome the problem of dissemination bias on the basis of previously collated evidence.
methodsBased on findings from systematic reviews, document analyses and surveys, we developed general and targeted draft recommendations. During a 2-day workshop in summer 2013, these draft recommendations were discussed with external experts and key stakeholders, and refined following a rigorous and transparent methodological approach.
resultsFour general, overarching recommendations applicable to all or most stakeholder groups were formulated, addressing (1) awareness raising, (2) implementation of targeted recommendations, (3) trial registration and results posting, and (4) systematic approaches to evidence synthesis. These general recommendations are complemented and specified by 47 targeted recommendations tailored towards funding agencies, pharmaceutical and device companies, research institutions, researchers (systematic reviewers and trialists), research ethics committees, trial registries, journal editors and publishers, regulatory agencies, benefit (health technology) assessment institutions and legislators.
conclusionsDespite various recent examples of dissemination bias and several initiatives to reduce it, the problem of dissemination bias has not been resolved. Tailored recommendations based on a comprehensive approach will hopefully help increase transparency in biomedical research by overcoming the failure to disseminate negative findings.
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.