review Open AccessTop 1% cited

Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

PLoS ONE · 2008 · Vol. 3(8) · pp. e3081–e3081

Kerry Dwan✉(University of Liverpool)Douglas G. Altman(University of Oxford)Juan A. Arnaiz(Hospital Clínic de Barcelona)Jill Bloom(University College London)An‐Wen Chan(Canadian Institutes of Health Research)Eugenia Cronin(Greenwich Hospital)Évelyne Decullier(Hospices Civils de Lyon)Philippa Easterbrook(King's College London)Erik von Elm(Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine)Carrol Gamble(University of Liverpool)Davina Ghersi(National Health and Medical Research Council)John P. A. Ioannidis(University of Ioannina)John Simes(National Health and Medical Research Council)Paula Williamson(University of Liverpool)

View via DOI Full-text PDF

Abstract

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.

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePublication biasMeta-analysisReporting biasSelection biasMedicineOddsSystematic reviewMEDLINEInformation biasPsychological intervention