Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: A systematic review

Kylie Thaler, Christina Kien, Barbara Nussbaumer, Megan G. Van Noord, Ursula Griebler, Irma Klerings, Gerald Gartlehner

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent or reduce publication and related biases. Study Design and Setting We searched multiple databases and performed manual searches using terms related to publication bias and known interventions against publication bias. We dually reviewed citations and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized results by intervention and outcomes measured and graded the quality of the evidence (QoE). Results We located 38 eligible studies. The use of prospective trial registries (PTR) has increased since 2005 (seven studies, moderate QoE); however, positive outcome-reporting bias is prevalent (14 studies, low QoE), and information in nonmandatory fields is vague (10 studies, low QoE). Disclosure of financial conflict of interest (CoI) is inadequate (five studies, low QoE). Blinding peer reviewers may reduce geographical bias (two studies, very low QoE), and open-access publishing does not discriminate against authors from low-income countries (two studies, very low QoE). Conclusion The use of PTR and CoI disclosures is increasing; however, the adequacy of their use requires improvement. The effect of open-access publication and blinding of peer reviewers on publication bias is unclear, as is the effect of other interventions such as electronic publication and authors' rights to publish their results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)792-802
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume68
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Publication Bias
Conflict of Interest
Disclosure
Registries
Publications
Databases

Keywords

  • Conflict of interest
  • Geographical bias
  • Open access
  • Peer review
  • Publication bias
  • Trial registration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness : A systematic review. / Thaler, Kylie; Kien, Christina; Nussbaumer, Barbara; Van Noord, Megan G.; Griebler, Ursula; Klerings, Irma; Gartlehner, Gerald.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 68, No. 7, 01.07.2015, p. 792-802.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Thaler, Kylie ; Kien, Christina ; Nussbaumer, Barbara ; Van Noord, Megan G. ; Griebler, Ursula ; Klerings, Irma ; Gartlehner, Gerald. / Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness : A systematic review. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2015 ; Vol. 68, No. 7. pp. 792-802.
@article{8baabbe705d3478980a25851f0ae0f3e,
title = "Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: A systematic review",
abstract = "Objectives To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent or reduce publication and related biases. Study Design and Setting We searched multiple databases and performed manual searches using terms related to publication bias and known interventions against publication bias. We dually reviewed citations and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized results by intervention and outcomes measured and graded the quality of the evidence (QoE). Results We located 38 eligible studies. The use of prospective trial registries (PTR) has increased since 2005 (seven studies, moderate QoE); however, positive outcome-reporting bias is prevalent (14 studies, low QoE), and information in nonmandatory fields is vague (10 studies, low QoE). Disclosure of financial conflict of interest (CoI) is inadequate (five studies, low QoE). Blinding peer reviewers may reduce geographical bias (two studies, very low QoE), and open-access publishing does not discriminate against authors from low-income countries (two studies, very low QoE). Conclusion The use of PTR and CoI disclosures is increasing; however, the adequacy of their use requires improvement. The effect of open-access publication and blinding of peer reviewers on publication bias is unclear, as is the effect of other interventions such as electronic publication and authors' rights to publish their results.",
keywords = "Conflict of interest, Geographical bias, Open access, Peer review, Publication bias, Trial registration",
author = "Kylie Thaler and Christina Kien and Barbara Nussbaumer and {Van Noord}, {Megan G.} and Ursula Griebler and Irma Klerings and Gerald Gartlehner",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "68",
pages = "792--802",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Thaler, Kylie

AU - Kien, Christina

AU - Nussbaumer, Barbara

AU - Van Noord, Megan G.

AU - Griebler, Ursula

AU - Klerings, Irma

AU - Gartlehner, Gerald

PY - 2015/7/1

Y1 - 2015/7/1

N2 - Objectives To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent or reduce publication and related biases. Study Design and Setting We searched multiple databases and performed manual searches using terms related to publication bias and known interventions against publication bias. We dually reviewed citations and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized results by intervention and outcomes measured and graded the quality of the evidence (QoE). Results We located 38 eligible studies. The use of prospective trial registries (PTR) has increased since 2005 (seven studies, moderate QoE); however, positive outcome-reporting bias is prevalent (14 studies, low QoE), and information in nonmandatory fields is vague (10 studies, low QoE). Disclosure of financial conflict of interest (CoI) is inadequate (five studies, low QoE). Blinding peer reviewers may reduce geographical bias (two studies, very low QoE), and open-access publishing does not discriminate against authors from low-income countries (two studies, very low QoE). Conclusion The use of PTR and CoI disclosures is increasing; however, the adequacy of their use requires improvement. The effect of open-access publication and blinding of peer reviewers on publication bias is unclear, as is the effect of other interventions such as electronic publication and authors' rights to publish their results.

AB - Objectives To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent or reduce publication and related biases. Study Design and Setting We searched multiple databases and performed manual searches using terms related to publication bias and known interventions against publication bias. We dually reviewed citations and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized results by intervention and outcomes measured and graded the quality of the evidence (QoE). Results We located 38 eligible studies. The use of prospective trial registries (PTR) has increased since 2005 (seven studies, moderate QoE); however, positive outcome-reporting bias is prevalent (14 studies, low QoE), and information in nonmandatory fields is vague (10 studies, low QoE). Disclosure of financial conflict of interest (CoI) is inadequate (five studies, low QoE). Blinding peer reviewers may reduce geographical bias (two studies, very low QoE), and open-access publishing does not discriminate against authors from low-income countries (two studies, very low QoE). Conclusion The use of PTR and CoI disclosures is increasing; however, the adequacy of their use requires improvement. The effect of open-access publication and blinding of peer reviewers on publication bias is unclear, as is the effect of other interventions such as electronic publication and authors' rights to publish their results.

KW - Conflict of interest

KW - Geographical bias

KW - Open access

KW - Peer review

KW - Publication bias

KW - Trial registration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930574897&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930574897&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.008

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.008

M3 - Review article

C2 - 25835490

AN - SCOPUS:84930574897

VL - 68

SP - 792

EP - 802

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 7

ER -