Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29401492›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Determinants of selective reporting: A taxonomy based on content analysis of a random selection of the literature.

Jenny T van der Steen, Cornelis A van den Bogert, Mirjam C van Soest-Poortvliet, Soulmaz Fazeli Farsani, René H J Otten, Gerben Ter Riet, Lex M Bouter

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Study Registration for the Field of Prevention Science: Considering Options and Paths Forward.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

7 authors.

Jenny T van der SteenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care (PHEG), Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9063-7501
Cornelis A van den BogertDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Mirjam C van Soest-PoortvlietProgram on Aging, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction (Trimbos-instituut), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Soulmaz Fazeli FarsaniDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology & Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
René H J OttenMedical Library, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Gerben Ter RietDepartment of General Practice, University of Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Lex M BouterDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSelective reporting is wasteful, leads to bias in the published record and harms the credibility of science. Studies on potential determinants of selective reporting currently lack a shared taxonomy and a causal framework.

objectiveTo develop a taxonomy of determinants of selective reporting in science.

designInductive qualitative content analysis of a random selection of the pertinent literature including empirical research and theoretical reflections.

methodsUsing search terms for bias and selection combined with terms for reporting and publication, we systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science databases up to January 8, 2015. Of the 918 articles identified, we screened a 25 percent random selection. From eligible articles, we extracted phrases that mentioned putative or possible determinants of selective reporting, which we used to create meaningful categories. We stopped when no new categories emerged in the most recently analyzed articles (saturation).

resultsSaturation was reached after analyzing 64 articles. We identified 497 putative determinants, of which 145 (29%) were supported by empirical findings. The determinants represented 12 categories (leaving 3% unspecified): focus on preferred findings (36%), poor or overly flexible research design (22%), high-risk area and its development (8%), dependence upon sponsors (8%), prejudice (7%), lack of resources including time (3%), doubts about reporting being worth the effort (3%), limitations in reporting and editorial practices (3%), academic publication system hurdles (3%), unfavorable geographical and regulatory environment (2%), relationship and collaboration issues (2%), and potential harm (0.4%).

conclusionsWe designed a taxonomy of putative determinants of selective reporting consisting of 12 categories. The taxonomy may help develop theory about causes of selection bias and guide policies to prevent selective reporting.

Indexed as

Publication BiasSelection Bias

Identifiers

PMID29401492
PMCPMC5798766

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.