Are studies reporting significant results more likely to be published?

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Volumn 136, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 632.e1-632.e5

  Koletsi, Despina ^a   Karagianni, Anthi ^a   Pandis, Nikolaos ^a   Makou, Margarita ^b   Polychronopoulou, Argy ^b   Eliades, Theodore ^c  

^a University of Athens ^*

^b UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

^c ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DENTAL RESEARCH; HUMAN; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; LITERATURE; ORTHODONTICS; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

DENTAL RESEARCH; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; ORTHODONTICS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLICATION BIAS; PUBLISHING; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 71849103516     PISSN: 08895406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.02.024     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Egger M., Smith G.D., and O'Rourke K. Rationale, potentials, and promise in systematic reviews. In: Egger M., Smith D.G., and Altman D.G. (Eds). Systematic reviews in health care meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed (2001), British Medical Journal Publishing Group, London, United Kingdom 3-19
2. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 263 (1990) 1385-1389
3. Egger M., and Smith D.G. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 316 (1998) 61-66
4. Easterbrook P.J., Berlin J.A., Gopalan R., and Matthews D.R. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337 (1991) 867-872
5. Dickersin K., Min Y.I., and Meinert C.L. Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 267 (1992) 374-378
6. Thornton A., and Lee P. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. J Clin Epidemiol 53 (2000) 207-216
7. Vickers A., Goyal N., Harland R., and Rees R. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials 19 (1998) 159-166
8. Stern J.M., and Simes R.J. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 315 (1997) 640-645
9. Egger M., Dickersin K., and Smith G.D. Problems and limitations conducting systematic reviews. In: Egger M., Smith D.G., and Altman D.G. (Eds). Systematic reviews in health care meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed (2001), British Medical Journal Publishing Group, London, United Kingdom 51
10. Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 86 (1979) 638-641
11. Moscati R., Jehle D., Ellis D., Fiorello A., and Landi M. Positive-outcome bias: comparison of emergency medicine and general medicine literatures. Acad Emerg Med 1 (1994) 267-271
12. Scholey J.M., and Harrison J.E. Delay and failure to publish dental research. Evid Based Dent 6 (2005) 58-61
13. Hopewell S., Clarke M., Stewart L., and Tierney J. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2007) (2):MR000011
14. Godlee F., and Dickersin K. Bias, subjectivity, chance, and conflict of interest in editorial decisions. In: Jefferson T., and Godlee F. (Eds). Peer review in health sciences (2003), British Medical Journal Publishing Group, London, United Kingdom 1-117
15. Dickersin K. How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev 9 1 Suppl (1997) 15-21
16. Dickersin K., and Min Y. Publication bias: the problem that won't go away. Ann N Y Acad Sci 703 (1993) 135-146
17. Bhandari M., Busse J.W., Jackowski D., Montori V.M., Schünemann H., Sprague S., et al. Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials. CMAJ 170 (2004) 477-480
18. Leopold S.S., Warme W.J., Fritz Braunlich E., and Shott S. Association between funding source and study outcome in orthopaedic research. Clin Orthop Relat Res 415 (2003) 293-301
19. Lynch J.R., Cunningham M.R., Warme W.J., Schaad D.C., Wolf F.M., and Leopold S.S. Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. Bone Joint Surg Am 89 (2007) 1010-1018
20. Jørgensen A.W., Hilden J., and Gøtzsche P.C. Cochrane reviews compared with industry-supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333 (2006) 782
21. Als-Nielsen B., Chen W., Gluud C., and Kjaergard L.L. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?. JAMA 290 (2003) 921-928
22. Hopewell S., McDonald S., Clarke M.J., and Egger M. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2007) (2):MR000010
23. Eliades T., and Athanasiou A.E. Impact factor. A review with specific relevance to orthodontic journals. J Orofac Orthop 62 (2001) 74-83
24. Eliades T., and Athanasiou A.E. Advanced orthodontic education: evolution of assessment criteria and methods to meet future challenges. Angle Orthod 75 (2005) 147-154
25. Gilbert J.R., Williams E.S., and Lundberg G.D. Is there a gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?. JAMA 272 (1994) 39-42
26. Earnshaw J.J., Farndon J.R., Guillou P.J., Johnson C.D., Murie J.A., and Murray G.D. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 82 4 Suppl (2000) 133-135
27. Redford D.R., Smille L., Wilson R.F., and Grace A.M. The criteria used by editors of scientific dental journals in the assessment of manuscripts submitted for publication. Br Dent J 187 (1999) 376-379
28. Peters D.P., and Ceci S.J. Peer review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles submitted again. Behav Brain Sci 5 (1982) 187-195
29. Davidson R.A. Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med 1 (1986) 155-158
30. Yaphe J., Edman R., Knishkowy B., and Herman J. The association between funding by commercial interests and study outcome in randomized control drug trials. Fam Pract 18 (2001) 565-568
31. Dubben H.H., and Beck-Bornholdt H.P. Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias. BMJ 331 (2005) 433-434
32. Egger M., and Smith G.D. Misleading meta-analysis. BMJ 311 (1995) 753-754
33. Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 263 (1990) 1405-1408
34. Chan A.W., and Altman D.G. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trial in PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 330 (2005) 753