Evidence‐based Urology in Practice: Publication Bias

Zhu, Yefang; Duijvesz, Diederick; Rovers, Maroeska M.; Lock, Tycho

doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.2010.10068_1.x

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Collectively, these influences toward publishing positive effects while demurring on those that are not contributes to publication bias in the literature. Evidence for publication bias has been observed across a range of disciplines (Awad 2010; Saeed, Paulson et al 2010; Polyzos, Valachis et al 2011; Zhu, Duijvesz et al 2011) and the field of neuroimaging is likely no different. Moreover, given the interest in gathering the summary data from neuroimaging studies of cognitive activation task paradigms into various shared databases (Van Horn and Gazzaniga 2002; Van Horn, Grafton et al 2004), there is a danger that publication bias has been embedded in these archives which may, in turn, affect their subsequent usage in meta-analytic assessments of activation patterns, regional involvement in cognitive systems, comparisons between diagnostic groups, etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Bias in Neuroimaging Research: Implications for Meta-Analyses

Jennings

Horn

2011

Neuroinform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuroimaging and the neurosciences have made notable advances in sharing activation results through detailed databases, making meta-analysis of the published research faster and easier. However, the effect of publication bias in these fields has not been previously addressed or accounted for in the developed meta-analytic methods. In this article, we examine publication bias in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) for tasks involving working memory in the frontal lobes (Brodmann Areas 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 37, 45, 46, and 47). Seventy-four studies were selected from the literature and the effect of publication bias was examined using a number of regression-based techniques. Pearson’s r correlation coefficient and Cohen’s d effect size estimates were computed for the activation in each study and compared to the study sample size using Egger’s regression, Macaskill’s regression, and the ‘Trim and Fill’ method. Evidence for publication bias was identified in this body of literature (p<0.01 for each test), generally, though was neither task- nor sub-region-dependent. While we focused our analysis on this subgroup of brain mapping studies, we believe our findings generalize to the brain imaging literature as a whole and databases seeking to curate their collective results. While neuroimaging databases of summary effects are of enormous value to the community, the potential publication bias should be considered when performing meta-analyses based on database contents.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Bias in Neuroimaging Research: Implications for Meta-Analyses

Jennings

Horn

2011

Neuroinform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prospective studies were more likely to be published in a higher impact journal, reflecting the higher level of evidence of this method of research. 21,22 Another significant development for this annual meeting lies in the change of training structure, with the incorporation of a run-through program from senior house officer to specialist registrar. The prior requirement of a higher degree by research in the formative years of training often led to significant amounts of laboratory-based research abstracts submitted to this meeting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conversion rates of abstracts to publications from the Irish Society of Urology Annual Meeting (2005–2011) – Questioning the scientific value of national urological meetings for smaller European nations

O’Kelly

Nason

Bell

et al. 2015

Journal of Clinical Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Large annual scientific meetings such as the American Urological Association (AUA) and the European Association of Urology (EUA) have abstract conversion rates into publication of 37%-48%. There are no data on the conversion rates from national meetings of smaller European countries. Our objective was to present the conversion rates and manuscript characteristics of the Irish Society of Urology (ISU) annual meeting over a seven-year period (2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011), and to demonstrate the value, viability and sustainability of such a meeting as a model for other small national research programmes. Methods: All abstracts presented at the ISU annual meeting between 2005 and 2011 were identified. The subsequent publication rate following the meetings was established for the corresponding studies based on a Medline scan. A range of characteristics associated with subsequent publication were analysed using the logistic regression of the dichotomous variable of publications vs. non-publication of each factor. Results: Overall, 46% of the 322 abstracts presented at the ISU meeting were followed by publication into Medlineindexed journals with a mean impact factor of 2.6. A total of 74% abstracts were published within two years. Oral presentations were more likely to be published than posters (p < 0.0001), and prospective clinical research was more likely to be published in a journal with a higher impact factor than retrospective analyses (p = 0.033); the mean time to publication was 16.7 months. Conclusions: Almost half the abstracts presented at the ISU were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals, the majority within two years. This compares favourably with larger urological meetings, and provides an incentive to other smaller countries within Europe to continue with national research programmes.

show abstract

Evidence‐based Urology in Practice: Publication Bias

Cited by 2 publications

References 8 publications

Publication Bias in Neuroimaging Research: Implications for Meta-Analyses

Publication Bias in Neuroimaging Research: Implications for Meta-Analyses

Conversion rates of abstracts to publications from the Irish Society of Urology Annual Meeting (2005–2011) – Questioning the scientific value of national urological meetings for smaller European nations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About