Good scientific practice. Part VII. Underpublishing/underreporting research

Journal of B.U.ON.

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 43-46

  Vučković Dekić, Ljiljana ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR ONCOLOGY AND RADIOLOGY OF SERBIA   (Serbia)

Author keywords

Ethics; Good publication practice; Good scientific practice; Publishing; Research; Scientific

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACT REPORT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DRUG INDUSTRY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICE; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE;

EID: 24944533722     PISSN: 11070625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Marušić M. Why physicians should publish, how easy it is, and how important it is in clinical work. Arch Oncol 2003; 11: 59-64.
2. Anonymous. Unpublished negative results bias literature call for action. ASCO daily news, May 21, 2002; 4:5A-7A.
3. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA et al. Clinical trial registration: A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/NEJMe048225 (assessed January 12, 2005).
4. Hirsch L. Randomized clinical trials: What gets published, and when? CMAJ 2004; 170: 481-483.
5. Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 1997; 315: 640-645.
6. Ioannidis JP, Cappelleri JC, Sacks HS, Lau J. The relationship between study design, results, and reporting of randomized clinical trials of HIV infection. Control Clin Trials 1997; 18: 431-434.
7. Stelfox HT, Chua G, O'Rourke K, Detsky AS. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonist. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 101-106.
8. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ, Barton C, Young G. Positive outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA 1998; 280: 254-257.
9. Misakian AL, Bero LA. Publication bias and research on passive smoking. Comparison of published and unpublished studies. JAMA 1998; 280: 250-253.
10. Bodenheimer T. Uneasy alliance. Clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1539-1544.
11. De Bellefeuille C, Morrison C, Tannock I. The fate of abstracts submitted to a cancer meeting: factors which influence presentation and subsequent publication. Ann Oncol 1992: 3: 187-191.
12. Vučković-Dekić Lj, Gajić-Veljanoski O, Jovićević-Bekić A, Jelić S. Publishing research presented at scientific meetings - to publish or not? Arch Oncol 2001; 9:161-164.
13. Dickersin K, Rennie D. Registering clinical trials. JAMA 2003; 290: 516-523.
14. Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D et al. Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 2002; 287:2825-2828.
15. Friedberg M, Saffran B, Stinson TJ, Nelson W, Benett CL. Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 1999; 282: 1453-1457.
16. McCarthy M. Company sought to block paper's publication. Lancet 2000; 356: 1659.
17. Parks MR, Disis ML. Conflicts of interest in translational research. J Transl Med 2004; 2:28 (Available at: http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/2/1/28).
18. Lexchin J, Bero, LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326: 1167-1170.
19. Vučković-Dekić Lj. Good Scientific Practice. Part VI. Conflict of interest. J BUON 2004; 9: 359-362.
20. Nathan DG, Weatherall DJ. Academic freedom in clinical research. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1368-1371.
21. Blumenthal D. Academic-industrial relationships in the life sciences. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 2452-2459.
22. Baird P. Getting it right: industry sponsorship and medical research. CMAJ 2003; 168: 1267-1269.
23. Davidoff F, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM et al. Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. JAMA 2001; 286: 1232-1233.
24. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003; 289: 454-465.
25. Drenth PJD. International science and fair-play practices. Sci Eng Ethics 2002; 8: 5-11.
26. Drazen JM. Institutions, contracts, and academic freedom. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1362-1363.
27. Antidepressant drug maker accused of fraud by New York Attorney General; blatant fraud is widespread in clinical trials of prescription drugs. http://www.newstarget.com/z001118.html (Accessed January 11, 2005).
28. Dowd D. Breaching the contract. The ethics of non-publication of research studies. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004; 158: 1014-1015.
29. Kelch RP. Maintaining the public trust in clinical research. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 285-287.
30. Wager E, Field EA, Grossman L. Good publication practice for pharmaceutical companies. Curr Med Res Opin 2003; 19: 149-154.
31. European Science Foundation. Registration of randomized controlled clinical trials. http://www.esf.org (Accessed January 13, 2005).
32. Antes G, Chalmers I. Underreporting of clinical trials is unethical. Lancet 2003; 361: 978-979.
33. von Kolfschooten F. Can you believe what you read? Nature 2002; 416:360-363.
34. Klassen TP, Wiebe N, Russel K et al. Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the Society for Pediatric Research meeting. An ekample of publication bias. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002; 156: 474-479.
35. Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C, Young G. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting. JAMA 1998; 280:257-259.
36. Scherer RV, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented as abstracts (Cochrane Methodology Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2004. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd (Abstract available at http://www.update-software.com/Abstracts/am000005.htm).
37. Petticrew M, Gilbody S, Song F. Lost information? The fate of papers presented at the 40th Society for Social Medicine Conference. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999; 53: 442-443.
38. Arrive L, Boelle PY, Dono P, Lewin M, Monnier-Cholley L, Tubiana JM. Subsequent publication of orally presented original studies within 5 years after 1995 RSNA Scientific Assembly. Radiology 2004; 232: 101-106.
39. Pich J, Carne X, Arnaiz JA, Gomez B, Trilla A, Rodes J. Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results. Lancet 2003; 361: 1015-1016.
40. Hartling L, Craig WR, Russel K, Stevens K, Klassen T. Factors influencing the publication of randomized controlled trials in child health research. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004; 158: 983-987.
41. Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA 2003; 290:495-501.
42. Anonymous. Scientific medical journals like JAMA fail basic credibility standards; medical journals become increasingly irrelevant. http://www.newstarget.com/001890.html (Assessed January 11, 2005).
43. Smith R. Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. Editors make a move (Editorial). BMJ 2001; 323:588.
44. Schafer A. Biomedical conflicts of interest: a defence of the sequestration thesis - learning from the cases of Nancy Oliviery and David Healy. J Med Ethics 2004; 30: 8-24.
45. Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beerman B. Evidence b(i)ased medicine - selective reporting from Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 2003; 326: 1171-1173.