SynthesisActa neurochirurgica2019
Association between medical academic genealogy and publication outcome: impact of unconscious bias on scientific objectivity.
Synthesis in Acta neurochirurgica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOur previous studies suggest that the training history of an investigator, termed "medical academic genealogy", influences the outcomes of that investigator's research. Here, we use meta-analysis and quantitative statistical modeling to determine whether such effects contribute to systematic bias in published conclusions.
methodsA total of 108 articles were identified through a comprehensive search of the high-grade glioma (HGG) surgical resection literature. Analysis was performed on the 70 articles with sufficient data for meta-analysis. Pooled estimates were generated for key academic genealogies. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to determine whether the effects attributed to genealogy alone can arise due to chance alone.
resultsMeta-analysis of the HGG literature without consideration for academic medical genealogy revealed that gross total resection (GTR) was associated with a significant decrease in the odds ratio (OR) for the hazard of death after surgery for both anaplastic astrocytoma (AA) and glioblastoma (AA: log [OR] = - 0.04, 95% CI [- 0.07 to - 0.01]; glioblastoma log [OR] = - 0.36, 95% CI [- 0.44 to - 0.29]). For the glioblastoma literature, meta-analysis of articles contributed by members of a genealogy consisting of mostly radiation oncologists revealed no reduction in the hazard of death after GTR [log [OR] = - 0.16, 95% CI [- 0.41 to 0.09]. In contrast, meta-analysis of published articles contributed by members of a genealogy consisting of mostly neurosurgeons revealed that GTR was associated with a significant reduction in the hazard of death [log [OR] = - 0.29, 95% CI [- 0.40 to 0.18]. Monte Carlo simulation revealed that the observed discrepancy between the articles contributed by the members of these two genealogies was unlikely to arise by chance alone (p < 0.006).
conclusionsMeta-analysis of articles contributed by authors belonging to the different medical academic genealogies yielded distinct and contradictory pooled point-estimates, suggesting that genealogy contributes to systematic bias in the published literature.
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.