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
Meta-Analysis
. 2009 Nov 26:9:79.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-79.

Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies

Fujian Song  1 , Sheetal Parekh-Bhurke, Lee Hooper, Yoon K Loke, Jon J Ryder, Alex J Sutton, Caroline B Hing, Ian Harvey
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Extent of publication bias in different categories of research cohorts: a meta-analysis of empirical studies

Fujian Song et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: The validity of research synthesis is threatened if published studies comprise a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted. We conducted a meta-analysis to ascertain the strength and consistency of the association between study results and formal publication.

Methods: The Cochrane Methodology Register Database, MEDLINE and other electronic bibliographic databases were searched (to May 2009) to identify empirical studies that tracked a cohort of studies and reported the odds of formal publication by study results. Reference lists of retrieved articles were also examined for relevant studies. Odds ratios were used to measure the association between formal publication and significant or positive results. Included studies were separated into subgroups according to starting time of follow-up, and results from individual cohort studies within the subgroups were quantitatively pooled.

Results: We identified 12 cohort studies that followed up research from inception, four that included trials submitted to a regulatory authority, 28 that assessed the fate of studies presented as conference abstracts, and four cohort studies that followed manuscripts submitted to journals. The pooled odds ratio of publication of studies with positive results, compared to those without positive results (publication bias) was 2.78 (95% CI: 2.10 to 3.69) in cohorts that followed from inception, 5.00 (95% CI: 2.01 to 12.45) in trials submitted to regulatory authority, 1.70 (95% CI: 1.44 to 2.02) in abstract cohorts, and 1.06 (95% CI: 0.80 to 1.39) in cohorts of manuscripts.

Conclusion: Dissemination of research findings is likely to be a biased process. Publication bias appears to occur early, mainly before the presentation of findings at conferences or submission of manuscripts to journals.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Pathway from research protocol to journal publication and categories of research cohorts.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Rate of publication of statistically significant versus non-significant results - all studies.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Rate of publication of positive versus non-positive results - all studies.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Rate of publication of statistically significant versus non-significant results - clinical trials only.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Rate of publication of positive versus non-positive results - clinical trials only.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Funnel plots -- publication of positive and non-positive results. (Funnel plot asymmetry test: p = 0.178 for inception cohort studies, p = 0.262 for regulatory cohort studies, p = 0.142 for abstract cohort studies, and p = 0.942 for manuscript cohort studies.)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Begg CB, Berlin JA. Publication bias; a problem in interpreting medical data. J R Statist Soc A. 1988;151:445–463. doi: 10.2307/2982993. - DOI
    1. Rosenthal R. The "file drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(3):638–641. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638. - DOI
    1. Begg CB, Berlin JA. Publication bias and dissemination of clinical research. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81:107–115. doi: 10.1093/jnci/81.2.107. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1385–1389. doi: 10.1001/jama.263.10.1385. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sterling T. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance - or vice versa. Am Stat Assoc J. 1959;54:30–34. doi: 10.2307/2282137. - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources