Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Aug 28;3(8):e3081.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003081.

Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias

Affiliations

Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias

Kerry Dwan et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention.

Methodology/principal findings: We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies.

Conclusions: Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Study flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2. QUOROM flow diagram.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Status of approved protocols for Chan 2004b study .
Figure 4
Figure 4. Status of approved protocols for Easterbrook 1991 study .
Figure 5
Figure 5. Status of approved protocols for Dickersin 1992 study .
Figure 6
Figure 6. Status of approved protocols for Dickersin 1993 study .
Figure 7
Figure 7. Status of approved protocols for Stern 1997 study .
Figure 8
Figure 8. Status of approved protocols for Cooper 1997 study .
Figure 9
Figure 9. Status of trials for Wormald 1997 study .
Figure 10
Figure 10. Status of approved protocols for Ioannidis 1998 study .
Figure 11
Figure 11. Status of approved protocols for Pich 2003 study .
Figure 12
Figure 12. Status of approved protocols for Cronin 2004 study .
Figure 13
Figure 13. Status of approved protocols for Decullier 2005 study .
Figure 14
Figure 14. Status of approved protocols for Decullier 2006 study .
Figure 15
Figure 15. Status of approved protocols for Hahn 2002 study .
Figure 16
Figure 16. Status of approved protocols for Chan 2004a study .
Figure 17
Figure 17. Status of approved protocols for Ghersi 2006 study .
Figure 18
Figure 18. Status of approved protocols for von Elm 2008 study .

References

    1. Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ. Publication and related biases. Health technol Assess. 2000;4(10) - PubMed
    1. Rothstein H, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester: Wiley; 2005.
    1. Dickersin K, Min YI. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online Journal of Curr Clin Trials doc no 50 1993 - PubMed
    1. Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort of clinical research projects. BMJ. 1997;315:640–645. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis JPA. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA. 1998;279:281–6. - PubMed

Publication types