Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29180912›Full record

ReviewBiochemia medica2017

Dealing with the positive publication bias: Why you should really publish your negative results.

Ana Mlinarić, Martina Horvat, Vesna Šupak Smolčić

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Biochemia medica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 167 papers, 33 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
167citing papers in PubMed, 33 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

167 citing papers in PubMed, 33 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Antidepressants versus placebo for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Comparison ofFrontiers in oncology · 2023
    Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

107 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Ana MlinarićResearch Integrity Editor, Biochemia Medica.
Martina HorvatResearch Integrity Editor, Biochemia Medica.
Vesna Šupak SmolčićResearch Integrity Editor, Biochemia Medica.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies with positive results are greatly more represented in literature than studies with negative results, producing so-called publication bias. This review aims to discuss occurring problems around negative results and to emphasize the importance of reporting negative results. Underreporting of negative results introduces bias into meta-analysis, which consequently misinforms researchers, doctors and policymakers. More resources are potentially wasted on already disputed research that remains unpublished and therefore unavailable to the scientific community. Ethical obligations need to be considered when reporting results of studies on human subjects as people have exposed themselves to risk with the assurance that the study is performed to benefit others. Some studies disprove the common conception that journal editors preferably publish positive findings, which are considered as more citable. Therefore, all stakeholders, but especially researchers, need to be conscious of disseminating negative and positive findings alike.

Indexed as

Publication BiasEditorial PoliciesNegative ResultsPublishingResearchmedical journalsnegative resultspublication biasresearch integrity

Identifiers

PMID29180912
PMCPMC5696751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.