IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0114023.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Schmucker
  • Lisa K Schell
  • Susan Portalupi
  • Patrick Oeller
  • Laura Cabrera
  • Dirk Bassler
  • Guido Schwarzer
  • Roberta W Scherer
  • Gerd Antes
  • Erik von Elm
  • Joerg J Meerpohl
  • on behalf of the OPEN consortium

Abstract

Background: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. Methods and Findings: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%–52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%–65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2–3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6–2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. Conclusions: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Schmucker & Lisa K Schell & Susan Portalupi & Patrick Oeller & Laura Cabrera & Dirk Bassler & Guido Schwarzer & Roberta W Scherer & Gerd Antes & Erik von Elm & Joerg J Meerpohl & on behalf o, 2014. "Extent of Non-Publication in Cohorts of Studies Approved by Research Ethics Committees or Included in Trial Registries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-25, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114023
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114023
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114023&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0114023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114023. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.