1991
DOI: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Publication bias in clinical research

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

37
1,530
12
40

Year Published

1998
1998
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2,679 publications
(1,619 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
37
1,530
12
40
Order By: Relevance
“…23a,30a Fourth, potential publication bias is inherent to population studies on the association between BP and dietary factors, including magnesium. 36 Twelve of 30 reports identified in our comprehensive search of the literature did not present an estimate of the association but only some unquantified differences between various subgroups. Is it possible that more studies reporting a negative, statistically significant, association might have been published in comparison with those reporting either no relation or a positive association.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…23a,30a Fourth, potential publication bias is inherent to population studies on the association between BP and dietary factors, including magnesium. 36 Twelve of 30 reports identified in our comprehensive search of the literature did not present an estimate of the association but only some unquantified differences between various subgroups. Is it possible that more studies reporting a negative, statistically significant, association might have been published in comparison with those reporting either no relation or a positive association.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…In time-lag bias, 39 studies with 'negative' results take longer time to be published, whereas enthusiastic results are published much more quickly. In publication bias, 40,41 small studies with 'negative' results are never published, whereas equally small studies with similar quality but 'positive' results would appear in the literature. We saw no evidence of such publication bias in any of the tests that we performed, but it remains one possible alternative explanation of our findings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These findings are based on published data of observational studies and may be subject to various biases that may account for discrepancies found between prognostic factors and curve progression [53,54]. Relevant (and unpublished) studies hidden in unknown databases are difficult to locate and may have been missed.…”
Section: Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%