Association between statistical significance and time to publication among systematic reviews: A study protocol for a meta-epidemiological investigation

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 10, 2017, Pages

  Tsujimoto, Yasushi ^a,b   Tsutsumi, Yusuke ^a   Kataoka, Yuki ^a   Tsujimoto, Hiraku ^c   Yamamoto, Yosuke ^a   Papola, Davide ^d   Guyatt, Gordon H ^e   Fukuhara, Shunichi ^a   Furukawa, Toshi A ^a  

^a KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b Kyoritsu Hospital   (Japan)

^c HYOGO PREFECTURAL AMAGASAKI GENERAL MEDICAL CENTER   (Japan)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VERONA   (Italy)

^e MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

meta epidemiological study; protocol registration; Publication bias; systematic reviews; time lag bias

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); ETHICS; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEDICAL INFORMATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PUBLISHING; REGISTER; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; EPIDEMIOLOGY; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; PUBLICATION; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES; HUMANS; PUBLICATION BIAS; PUBLICATIONS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 85032209425     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018856     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: Evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 1997;315:640-5.
2. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, et al. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;1:MR000006.
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. Ioannidis JP. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 1998;279:281-6.
5. Simes RJ. Publication bias: The case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1986;4:1529-41.
6. Dickersin K. How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev 1997;9(1 Suppl):15-21.
7. Song F, Parekh S, Hooper L, et al. Dissemination and publication of research findings: An updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assess 2010;14:1-193. iii, ix-xi.
8. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. In: Higgins JP, Green S, eds. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. (updated Mar 2011).
9. Dickersin K, Olson CM, Rennie D, et al. Association between time interval to publication and statistical significance. JAMA 2002;287:2829-31.
10. Mueller KF, Meerpohl JJ, Briel M, et al. Methods for detecting, quantifying, adjusting for dissemination bias in meta-analysis are described. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;80:25-33.
11. Tricco AC, Moher D, Chen MH, et al. Factors predicting completion and time to publication of Cochrane reviews. Open Med 2009;3:e210-4.
12. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, et al. Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: Cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:380-6.
13. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007;4:e78.
14. Tricco AC, Pham B, Brehaut J, et al. An international survey indicated that unpublished systematic reviews exist. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:617-23.
15. Tsujimoto H, Tsujimoto Y, Kataoka Y. Unpublished systematic reviews and financial support: A meta-epidemiological study (abstract). XXIV Cochrane Colloquium. 2016 https://abstractscochraneorg/2016-seoul/unpublished-systematic-reviews-and-financial-support-metaepidemiological-study.
16. Tsujimoto Y, Tsujimoto H, Kataoka Y, et al. Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: A meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;84:54-60.
17. Dissemination CfRa. PROSPERO, International prospective register of systematic reviews. https://www. crd. york. ac. uk/prospero/.
18. Davies S. The importance of PROSPERO to the National Unstitute for Health Research. Syst Rev 2012;1:5.