Publication bias in the medical literature: A review by a Canadian Research Ethics Board

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia

Volumn 54, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 380-388

  Hall, Richard ^a,c   de Antueno, Cecilia ^b   Webber, Adam ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b Capital District Health Authority   (Canada)

^c QUEEN ELIZABETH II HEALTH SCIENCES CENTRE   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANESTHESIA; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CANADA; CHI SQUARE TEST; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG RESEARCH; FISHER EXACT TEST; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; NURSING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; REGISTER; RESEARCH ETHICS; REVIEW; STUDENT T TEST;

EID: 34250159020     PISSN: 0832610X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF03022661     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867-72.
2. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 19905 263: 1385-9.
3. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 1992; 267: 374-8.
4. Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ 2000; 320: 1574-7.
5. Egger M, Smith GD. Misleading meta-analysis. BMJ 1995; 310: 752-4.
6. Antes G, Chalmers I. Under-reporting of clinical trials is unethical. Lancet 2003; 361: 978-9.
7. Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 1990; 263: 1405-8.
8. Mann H. Research ethics committees and public dissemination of clinical trial results. Lancet 2002; 360: 406-8.
9. Decullier E, Lheritier V, Chapuis F. Fate of biomedical research protocols and publication bias in France: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2005; 331: 19.
10. Sune-Martin P, Montoro-Ronsano JB. Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results. Lancet 2003; 361: 2245-6.
11. 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: 1015-6.
12. Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 1997; 315: 640-5.
13. DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA 2004; 292: 1363-4.
14. DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, et al. Is this clinical trial fully registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA 2005; 293: 2927-9.
15. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. 1998 (with 2000, 2002 and 2005 amendments). Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) 2005. Available from URL; www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement.
16. The International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). E6(R1): Good Clinical Practice: Consolidated Guideline. The International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) 2006. Available from URL; www.ich.org.
17. Government of Canada. Division 5 Drugs For Clinical Trials Involving Human Subjects. Food and Drugs Act (R.S., 1985, c.F-27) 2006. Available from URL; http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F-27/C.R-C.-c.870/238148.html.
18. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1-12.
19. Thomson ISI (Institute for Scientific Information). Journal Citation Report. Selected Scientific Journals 2001. Available from URL; www.genebee.msu.su/journals.
20. Herxheimer A. Open access to industry's clinically relevant data. BMJ 2004; 329: 64-5.
21. Psaty BM, Furberg CD. COX-2 inhibitors--lessons in drug safety. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 1133-5.
22. Chopra SS. MSJAMA: industry funding of clinical trials: benefit or bias? JAMA. 2003; 290: 113-4.
23. Goodyear M. Learning from the TGN1412 trial. BMJ 2006; 332: 677-8.
24. Suntharalingam G, Perry MR, Ward S, et al. Cytokine storm in a phase 1 trial of the anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN 1412. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1018-28.
25. Zarin DA, Tse T, Ide NC. Trial Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 2779-87.
26. Steinbrook R. Gag clauses in clinical-trial agreements. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 2160-2.
27. Olivieri NF, Brittenham GM, McLaren CE, et al. Long-term safety and effectiveness of iron-chelation therapy with deferiprone for thalassemia major. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 417-23.
28. Chan AW, Krleza-Jeric K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 2004; 171: 735-40.
29. Chan AW, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 2005; 330: 753.
30. Garland EJ. Facing the evidence: antidepressant treatment in children and adolescents. CMAJ 2004; 170: 489-91.
31. 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.
32. Thornton A, Lee P. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. J Clin Epidcmiol 2000; 53: 207-16.
33. Gilbody SM, Song F, Eastwood AJ, Sutton A. The causes, consequences and detection of publication bias in psychiatry. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2000; 102: 241-9.
34. Altman DG. Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? JAMA 2002; 287: 2765-7.
35. Massie BM. Negative, neutral, and discordant results: what should an editor do? J Card Fail 2003; 9: 77-9.
36. Shields PG. Publication bias is a scientific problem with adverse ethical outcomes: the case for a section for null results. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000; 9: 771-2.
37. Yaphe J, Edman R, Knishkowy B, Herman J. The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized controlled drug trials. Fam Pract 2001; 18: 565-8.
38. Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beermann B. Evidence b(i)ased medicine--selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 2003; 326: 1171-3.
39. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326: 1167-70.
40. Hailey D. Scientific harassment by pharmaceutical companies: time to stop. CMAJ 2000; 162: 212-3.
41. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 2003; 290: 921-8.
42. Rennie D. Thyroid storm. JAMA 1997; 277: 1238-43.
43. Cho MK, Bero LA. The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124: 485-9.