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
. 2014 Dec 23;9(12):e114023.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114023. eCollection 2014.

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

Affiliations

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

Christine Schmucker et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries.

Methods and findings: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%.

Conclusions: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

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

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. PRISMA statement flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Weighted proportion of published studies for 17 MRPs following studies after REC approval.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Weighted proportion of published studies for 14 MRPs following studies after trial registration.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Time to publication after ethics committee approval.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Time to publication after trial registration.

References

    1. Simes RJ (1986) Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 4:1529–1541. - PubMed
    1. Dickersin K (1990) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 263:1385–1389. - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis JP (1998) Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 279:281–286. - PubMed
    1. Muller KF, Briel M, D'Amario A, Kleijnen J, Marusic A, et al. (2013) Defining publication bias: protocol for a systematic review of highly cited articles and proposal for a new framework. Syst Rev 2:34. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis JP (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2:e124. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types