ReviewBMJ open2016
Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus.
Review in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Publication bias in otorhinolaryngology meta-analyses in 2021.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Toward an Integrated Model of Supportive Peer Relationships in Early Adolescence: A Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic dissemination of study findings from local to national stakeholders: a case of a social network-based study on HIV self-testing and linkage among fishermen in Kenya.SAHARA J : journal of Social Aspects of HIV/AIDS Research Alliance · 2026Article
- Improving research transparency with individualized report cards: A feasibility study in clinical trials at a large university medical center.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Article
- Conflicts of interest in infection prevention and control research: no smoke without fire. A narrative review.Intensive care medicine · 2018Review
- Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias.Implementation science : IS · 2018Article
- Determinants of selective reporting: A taxonomy based on content analysis of a random selection of the literature.PloS one · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study is to review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies, and to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to defining (non-) dissemination of research findings.
settingWe performed a scoping review of definitions of the term 'publication bias' in highly cited publications.
participantsIdeas and experiences of a core group of authors were collected in a draft document, which was complemented by the findings from our literature search.
interventionsThe draft document including findings from the literature search was circulated to an international group of experts and revised until no additional ideas emerged and consensus was reached. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: We propose a new approach to the comprehensive conceptualisation of (non-) dissemination of research. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Our 'What, Who and Why?' approach includes issues that need to be considered when disseminating research findings (What?), the different players who should assume responsibility during the various stages of conducting a clinical trial and disseminating clinical trial documents (Who?), and motivations that might lead the various players to disseminate findings selectively, thereby introducing bias in the dissemination process (Why?).
conclusionsOur comprehensive framework of (non-) dissemination of research findings, based on the results of a scoping literature search and expert consensus will facilitate the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the multifaceted issue of selective publication, historically referred to as 'publication bias'.
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.