Failure to publish negative results: A systematic bias in psychiatric literature

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry

Volumn 51, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 212-214

  Porter, Richard J ^a   Boden, Joseph M ^a   Miskowiak, Kamilla ^b   Malhi, Gin S ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^b Rigshospitalet   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d ROYAL NORTH SHORE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACETYLCYSTEINE;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; AUTISM; CLINICAL PRACTICE; EFFECT SIZE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCHIATRY; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STANDARDS;

HUMANS; PSYCHIATRY; PUBLICATION BIAS;

EID: 85013230520     PISSN: 00048674     EISSN: 14401614     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0004867416683816     Document Type: Review

References (5)

1. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, et al. (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste: Addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 383: 257-266.
2. Dean OM, Gray KM, Villagonzalo KA, et al. (2016) A randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of a fixed dose of N-acetyl cysteine in children with autistic disorder. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. Epub ahead of print 17. DOI: 10.1177/0004867416652735.
3. Fanelli D, (2012) Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics 90: 891-904.
4. Scott A, Rucklidge JJ, Mulder RT, (2015) Is mandatory prospective trial registration working to prevent publication of unregistered trials and selective outcome reporting? An observational study of five psychiatry journals that mandate prospective clinical trial registration. PLoS ONE 10: E0133718.
5. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, et al. (2008) Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine 358: 252-260.