Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26801469›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2016

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus.

Dirk Bassler, Katharina F Mueller, Matthias Briel, Jos Kleijnen, Ana Marusic, Elizabeth Wager, Gerd Antes, Erik von Elm, Douglas G Altman, Joerg J Meerpohl and 1 more

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2020
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

11 authors.

Dirk BasslerDepartment of Neonatology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Katharina F MuellerCenter for Pediatric Clinical Studies, University Children's Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
Matthias BrielDepartment of Clinical Research, Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Jos KleijnenSchool for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Ana MarusicDepartment of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
Elizabeth WagerSideview, Princes Risborough, Bucks, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4202-7813
Gerd AntesGerman Cochrane Centre, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Erik von ElmCochrane Switzerland, IUMSP, University Hospital Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Douglas G AltmanCentre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Joerg J MeerpohlGerman Cochrane Centre, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
OPEN Consortium

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16895
6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicInformation DisseminationPublication BiasConsensusHumansDissemination biasMEDICAL ETHICSOPEN ProjectPublication BiasQUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Identifiers

PMID26801469
PMCPMC4735132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.