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
Review
. 2016 Jan 21;6(1):e010024.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010024.

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus

Dirk Bassler  1 , Katharina F Mueller  2 , Matthias Briel  3 , Jos Kleijnen  4 , Ana Marusic  5 , Elizabeth Wager  6 , Gerd Antes  7 , Erik von Elm  8 , Douglas G Altman  9 , Joerg J Meerpohl  7 ; OPEN Consortium
Collaborators, Affiliations
Review

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus

Dirk Bassler et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies, and to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to defining (non-) dissemination of research findings.

Setting: We performed a scoping review of definitions of the term 'publication bias' in highly cited publications.

Participants: Ideas and experiences of a core group of authors were collected in a draft document, which was complemented by the findings from our literature search.

Interventions: The draft document including findings from the literature search was circulated to an international group of experts and revised until no additional ideas emerged and consensus was reached.

Primary outcomes: We propose a new approach to the comprehensive conceptualisation of (non-) dissemination of research.

Secondary outcomes: Our 'What, Who and Why?' approach includes issues that need to be considered when disseminating research findings (What?), the different players who should assume responsibility during the various stages of conducting a clinical trial and disseminating clinical trial documents (Who?), and motivations that might lead the various players to disseminate findings selectively, thereby introducing bias in the dissemination process (Why?).

Conclusions: Our comprehensive framework of (non-) dissemination of research findings, based on the results of a scoping literature search and expert consensus will facilitate the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the multifaceted issue of selective publication, historically referred to as 'publication bias'.

Keywords: Dissemination bias; MEDICAL ETHICS; OPEN Project; Publication Bias; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Various reasons for selective publication.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Higgins Julian PT, Green S. Cochrane handbook of systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://www.handbook.cochrane.org
    1. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 1990;263:1385–9. 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100097014 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R et al. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991;337:867–72. 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-Y - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004;291:2457–65. 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L et al. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(2):MR000011. - PMC - PubMed