Publication Bias

Olson, Carin M

doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.1994.tb02430.x

Cited by 8 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is no standardized definition of positive results [9], and we considered study results favorable to industry if study findings suggested beneficial health effects or absence of expected adverse health effects with regards to the intervention under study. Disagreement was resolved through discussion.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics Associated with Citation Rate of the Medical Literature

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe citation rate for articles is viewed as a measure of their importance and impact; however, little is known about what features of articles are associated with higher citation rate.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe conducted a cohort study of all original articles, regardless of study methodology, published in the Lancet, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine, from October 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000. We identified 328 articles. Two blinded, independent reviewers extracted, in duplicate, nine variables from each article, which were analyzed in both univariable and multivariable linear least-squares regression models for their association with the annual rate of citations received by the article since publication. A two-way interaction between industry funding and an industry-favoring result was tested and found to be significant (p = 0.02). In our adjusted analysis, the presence of industry funding and an industry-favoring result was associated with an increase in annual citation rate of 25.7 (95% confidence interval, 8.5 to 42.8) compared to the absence of both industry funding and industry-favoring results. Higher annual rates of citation were also associated with articles dealing with cardiovascular medicine (13.3 more; 95% confidence interval, 3.9 to 22.3) and oncology (12.6 more; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 24.0), articles with group authorship (11.1 more; 95% confidence interval, 2.7 to 19.5), larger sample size and journal of publication.Conclusions/SignificanceLarge trials, with group authorship, industry-funded, with industry-favoring results, in oncology or cardiology were associated with greater subsequent citations.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics Associated with Citation Rate of the Medical Literature

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Peer-reviewed biomedical journals are more likely to publish original papers reporting positive results than studies with negative data [ 1 - 4 ]. This "publication bias," also termed "positive-outcome-bias," has been recognized and described in the internal medicine literature [ 5 - 8 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bias towards publishing positive results in orthopedic and general surgery: a patient safety issue?

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Research articles reporting positive findings in the fields of orthopedic and general surgery appear to be represented at a considerably higher prevalence in the peer-reviewed literature, compared to published studies on negative or neutral data. This "publication bias" may alter the balance of the available evidence-based literature and may affect patient safety in surgery by depriving important information from unpublished negative studies.

show abstract

“…Additionally, there is a clear bias in academic medicine to report only positive results. [15][16][17] Our data showed that of the clinical trials with publications, 80.6% had positive results and 19.3% had negative results (Fig. 5).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…It is possible that the remaining trials may yet still publish; however, it remains problematic if clinical trial results are not reported within 2 years, as timely publication of clinical trials have the potential to affect physician treatment choices, and thus, patients' lives. Additionally, there is a clear bias in academic medicine to report only positive results . Our data showed that of the clinical trials with publications, 80.6% had positive results and 19.3% had negative results (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%