Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39707441›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2024

A scoping review of activities intended to reduce publication bias in randomised trials.

Ameer Hohlfeld, Tamara Kredo, Michael Clarke

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Is any research ever truly bias-free? The myth of objectivity in science.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Promoting informed health choices: the long and winding road.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Ameer HohlfeldDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa. ameer.hohlfeld@mrc.ac.za.ORCID 0000-0003-1710-1265
Tamara KredoDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Michael ClarkeDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization recommends that a randomised controlled trial (RCT) publishes its results in a peer-reviewed journal within 24 months of study completion. When RCTs are not published or publication is delayed, this can contribute to publication bias, which is the tendency for studies with positive or significant results to be published more frequently than studies with nonsignificant or negative results. This bias skews the available evidence, creating a distorted view of the research landscape. There is uncertainty about which activities best mitigate publication bias. This review systematically synthesises literature on activities that targeted researchers with the intention of reducing publication bias among health science researchers.

methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed and Scopus and forward and backward citation searches. There were no restrictions on language, time or publication status. We included studies of any design that tested an activity to reduce publication bias in health research. Ideally, participants had to be investigators or researchers who had conducted, led or been involved in RCTs. The context was any research institution that conducts research. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts for eligibility, followed by duplicate full-text screening and data extraction. One reviewer collated and summarised the extracted data and arranged these using an analytical framework to describe the findings thematically. For quality assurance, a second reviewer checked the data analysis.

resultsOur database search yielded 14,185 records, with 11,754 after de-duplication. Of these, we excluded 11,728 records after title and abstract screening. We assessed 26 full texts for eligibility. One of these met the eligibility criteria. Forward and backward citation searches yielded 57 records, and 43 were eligible. We included 44 studies published between 1995 and 2022 that described activities promoting the publication of health-related research. We identified 10 broad activities that were often used in combination and concentrated on writing manuscripts. DISCUSSION: This review describes several strategies that have been used to assist health researchers in publishing their findings. However, our search was unable to find studies that tested activities specifically geared toward researchers conducting RCTs. Rigorous research is needed to determine effective strategies for reducing publication bias among trialists.

Indexed as

Publication BiasRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansPublishingResearch DesignPublication biasRandomised controlled trialsResearch wasteScoping reviews

Identifiers

PMID39707441
PMCPMC11660680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.