A scoping review of activities intended to reduce publication bias in randomised trials.

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2024-12-20 DOI:10.1186/s13643-024-02728-5
Ameer Hohlfeld, Tamara Kredo, Michael Clarke
{"title":"A scoping review of activities intended to reduce publication bias in randomised trials.","authors":"Ameer Hohlfeld, Tamara Kredo, Michael Clarke","doi":"10.1186/s13643-024-02728-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The World Health Organization recommends that a randomised controlled trial (RCT) publishes its results in a peer-reviewed journal within 24 months of study completion. When RCTs are not published or publication is delayed, this can contribute to publication bias, which is the tendency for studies with positive or significant results to be published more frequently than studies with nonsignificant or negative results. This bias skews the available evidence, creating a distorted view of the research landscape. There is uncertainty about which activities best mitigate publication bias. This review systematically synthesises literature on activities that targeted researchers with the intention of reducing publication bias among health science researchers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed and Scopus and forward and backward citation searches. There were no restrictions on language, time or publication status. We included studies of any design that tested an activity to reduce publication bias in health research. Ideally, participants had to be investigators or researchers who had conducted, led or been involved in RCTs. The context was any research institution that conducts research. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts for eligibility, followed by duplicate full-text screening and data extraction. One reviewer collated and summarised the extracted data and arranged these using an analytical framework to describe the findings thematically. For quality assurance, a second reviewer checked the data analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our database search yielded 14,185 records, with 11,754 after de-duplication. Of these, we excluded 11,728 records after title and abstract screening. We assessed 26 full texts for eligibility. One of these met the eligibility criteria. Forward and backward citation searches yielded 57 records, and 43 were eligible. We included 44 studies published between 1995 and 2022 that described activities promoting the publication of health-related research. We identified 10 broad activities that were often used in combination and concentrated on writing manuscripts.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This review describes several strategies that have been used to assist health researchers in publishing their findings. However, our search was unable to find studies that tested activities specifically geared toward researchers conducting RCTs. Rigorous research is needed to determine effective strategies for reducing publication bias among trialists.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"13 1","pages":"310"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11660680/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02728-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization recommends that a randomised controlled trial (RCT) publishes its results in a peer-reviewed journal within 24 months of study completion. When RCTs are not published or publication is delayed, this can contribute to publication bias, which is the tendency for studies with positive or significant results to be published more frequently than studies with nonsignificant or negative results. This bias skews the available evidence, creating a distorted view of the research landscape. There is uncertainty about which activities best mitigate publication bias. This review systematically synthesises literature on activities that targeted researchers with the intention of reducing publication bias among health science researchers.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed and Scopus and forward and backward citation searches. There were no restrictions on language, time or publication status. We included studies of any design that tested an activity to reduce publication bias in health research. Ideally, participants had to be investigators or researchers who had conducted, led or been involved in RCTs. The context was any research institution that conducts research. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts for eligibility, followed by duplicate full-text screening and data extraction. One reviewer collated and summarised the extracted data and arranged these using an analytical framework to describe the findings thematically. For quality assurance, a second reviewer checked the data analysis.

Results: Our database search yielded 14,185 records, with 11,754 after de-duplication. Of these, we excluded 11,728 records after title and abstract screening. We assessed 26 full texts for eligibility. One of these met the eligibility criteria. Forward and backward citation searches yielded 57 records, and 43 were eligible. We included 44 studies published between 1995 and 2022 that described activities promoting the publication of health-related research. We identified 10 broad activities that were often used in combination and concentrated on writing manuscripts.

Discussion: This review describes several strategies that have been used to assist health researchers in publishing their findings. However, our search was unable to find studies that tested activities specifically geared toward researchers conducting RCTs. Rigorous research is needed to determine effective strategies for reducing publication bias among trialists.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
旨在减少随机试验发表偏倚的活动范围评价。
背景:世界卫生组织建议随机对照试验(RCT)在研究完成后24个月内在同行评议的期刊上发表其结果。当rct未发表或延迟发表时,这可能会导致发表偏倚,即具有积极或显著结果的研究比具有不显著或阴性结果的研究更频繁地发表的趋势。这种偏见扭曲了现有的证据,造成了对研究前景的扭曲看法。哪些活动最能减轻发表偏倚存在不确定性。本综述系统地综合了针对研究人员的活动的文献,旨在减少卫生科学研究人员的发表偏倚。方法:在PubMed和Scopus中进行综合检索,并进行前向和后向引文检索。对语言、时间或出版地位没有限制。我们纳入了在健康研究中测试减少发表偏倚活动的任何设计的研究。理想情况下,参与者必须是进行、领导或参与随机对照试验的调查人员或研究人员。背景是任何进行研究的研究机构。两位审稿人独立评估标题和摘要的合格性,然后进行重复的全文筛选和数据提取。一位审稿人整理和总结提取的数据,并使用分析框架对这些数据进行整理,以主题方式描述研究结果。为了保证质量,另一位审稿人检查了数据分析。结果:我们的数据库搜索产生14,185条记录,重复数据删除后产生11,754条记录。其中,经过标题和摘要筛选,我们排除了11728条记录。我们评估了26篇全文的合格性。其中一个符合资格标准。向前和向后的引文检索产生了57条记录,其中43条符合条件。我们纳入了1995年至2022年间发表的44项研究,这些研究描述了促进健康相关研究发表的活动。我们确定了10项广泛的活动,这些活动经常结合使用,并集中于撰写手稿。讨论:本综述描述了用于帮助卫生研究人员发表其研究结果的几种策略。然而,我们的研究没有找到专门针对研究人员进行随机对照试验的研究。需要严格的研究来确定减少试验人员发表偏倚的有效策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
期刊最新文献
The impact of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors on the incidence, therapy, and outcomes of fournier gangrene: insights from a systematic review of case reports. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy for stage II-IVa esophageal cancer: a network meta-analysis. Perioperative or neo/adjuvant chemoimmunotherapy versus chemotherapy for resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The safety and efficacy of cannabinoids for the treatment of mental health and substance use disorders: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. The resilience of parents and carers who administer medicines to children at home: a qualitative systematic review protocol.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1