[Duplicate publication a way of embellishing research results. Unethical misuse which threatens the validity of systematic reviews and meta-analysis]
- PMID: 11037585
[Duplicate publication a way of embellishing research results. Unethical misuse which threatens the validity of systematic reviews and meta-analysis]
Abstract
Studies showing favourable results tend to be published more than once. This practice of duplicate publication is, however, dishonest and unethical on the part of scientists and pharmaceutical companies. Inclusion into a meta-analysis of the results from multiple papers derived from one and the same controlled study gives an inflated picture of the efficacy of the treatment. If manufacturers and researchers not only made all their study data public but also registered trials prospectively these pitfalls could be avoided.
Similar articles
-
Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies.Pain Physician. 2009 Sep-Oct;12(5):819-50. Pain Physician. 2009. PMID: 19787009
-
[Clinical decision-making: systematic reviews and meta-analysis].Neurologia. 2003 Mar;18(2):70-3. Neurologia. 2003. PMID: 12610756 Spanish.
-
The need for trial identifiers.Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20(2):203-6. doi: 10.1185/030079903125002883. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004. PMID: 15006015
-
Primer: strengths and weaknesses of meta-analysis.Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2008 Mar;4(3):146-52. doi: 10.1038/ncprheum0732. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2008. PMID: 18227829 Review.
-
How to read and understand and use systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009 Jun;119(6):443-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01388.x. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009. PMID: 19469725 Review.
Cited by
-
Outcomes of HIV treatment from the private sector in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol.BMJ Open. 2020 Jan 8;10(1):e031844. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031844. BMJ Open. 2020. PMID: 31919124 Free PMC article.