Publication bias in the anesthesiology literature: shifting the focus from the “positive” to the “truth”

Jones, Philip M.

doi:10.1007/s12630-016-0632-z

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These solutions, however, do not completely resolve all sources of publication bias. 2 The editorial by Jones 3 suggested several solutions for reducing publication bias further, including additional research focused on publication bias, an emphasis by university and funding bodies on the quality of the study rather than the results alone, and having research ethics boards make it compulsory to publish all registered studies regardless of outcomes.…”

Section: To the Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

A two-stage review process for randomized controlled trials: the ultimate solution for publication bias?

Law

2016

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: To the Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

A two-stage review process for randomized controlled trials: the ultimate solution for publication bias?

Law

2016

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…anesthesiology (Chong et al 2016;De Oliveira et al 2012;Lim et al 2016;Sukhal et al 2017; M. Jones 2016;Hedin et al 2016), this important issue has received limited attention in PeerJ reviewing PDF | (2018:02:23956:2:1:NEW 17 May 2018)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review #1 of "Is publication bias present in gastroenterological research? An analysis of abstracts presented at an annual congress (v0.2)"

Ja¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Publication bias is the tendency of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on their direction or strength of findings. In this study, we investigated if publication bias was present in gastroenterological research by evaluating abstracts at Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Congresses from 2011 to 2013. Methods We searched Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed to locate the published reports of research described in these abstracts. If a publication was not found, a second investigator searched to verify nonpublication. If abstract publication status remained undetermined, authors were contacted regarding reasons for nonpublication. For articles reaching publication, the P value, study design, time to publication, citation count, and journals in which the published report appeared were recorded. Results Our study found that of 569 abstracts presented, 297 (52.2%) reported a P value. Of these, 254 (85.5%) contained P values supporting statistical significance. The abstracts reporting a statistically significant outcome were twice as likely to reach publication than abstracts with no significant findings (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.06-4.14). Overall, 243 (42.7%) abstracts reached publication. The mean time to publication was 14 months and a median time of 9 months. Conclusion In conclusion, we found evidence for publication bias in gastroenterological research. Abstracts with significant P values had a higher probability of reaching publication. More than half of abstracts presented from 2011 to 2013 failed to reached publication. Readers should take these finding into consideration when reviewing medical literature.

show abstract

“…These elements have all remained private information-known only to the researchers and exposed to little external scrutiny or verification. This lack of transparency has facilitated selective trial reporting (also known as publication bias), 1,2 selective outcome reporting, 3 mistakes in statistical analyses, 4 and the conduct of suspected 5 or known 6 fraudulent studies. These factors represent threats to the goal of basing our clinical care on the highest quality evidence.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Open season: positive changes for increased transparency in the biomedical literature

Jones

Bryson

2017

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publication bias in the anesthesiology literature: shifting the focus from the “positive” to the “truth”

Cited by 15 publications

References 18 publications

A two-stage review process for randomized controlled trials: the ultimate solution for publication bias?

A two-stage review process for randomized controlled trials: the ultimate solution for publication bias?

Peer Review #1 of "Is publication bias present in gastroenterological research? An analysis of abstracts presented at an annual congress (v0.2)"

Open season: positive changes for increased transparency in the biomedical literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About