Abstract
Publication bias refers to the tendency of researchers, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study, leading to a bias in selective publication of studies with positive outcomes. The existence of publication bias in surgical literature has been well-documented. Publication bias leads to misleading conclusion in metaanalysis of clinical trials as negative studies are underrepresented. As a result, inappropriate investigations or treatments may be recommended to patients. To reduce publication bias in surgical literature, a framework of measures directed at individual investigators, institutions, reviewers, and editors of journals are outlined in this chapter. Compulsory registration of all clinical trials in public registry and online open access journals for publication of all trials, irrespective of positive or negative results, are particularly important measures to reduce publication bias.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, et al (2001) The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134:663–694
Benos DJ, Fabres J, Farmer J, Gutierrez JP et al (2005) Ethics and scientific publication. Adv Physiol Educ 29:59–74
Bown MJ, Sutton AJ, Bell PR et al (2002) A meta-analysis of 50 years of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Br J Surg 89:714–730
Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ et al (1998) Positive-outcome and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA 280:254–257
Chalmers I (1990) Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA 263:1405–1408
Chalmers I (1993) Publication bias. Lancet 342:1116
Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT et al (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials. Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291:2457–2465
De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA et al (2004) Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 364:911–912
De Bellefeuille C, Morrision C, Tannock I (1992) The fate of abstracts submitted to a cancer meeting: factors which influ-ence presentation and subsequent publication. Ann Oncol 3:187–191
Dickersin K (1990) The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 263:1385–1389
Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC et al (1987) Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 8:343–353
Dickerson K, Min Y, Meinert CL (1992) Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 267:374–378
Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R et al (1991) Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337;867–872
Egger M, David Smith G et al (1998) Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ 316:61–66
Egger M, David Smith G et al (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634
Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M et al (1997) Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 350:326–329
Frick MH, Elo O, Haapa K, Heinonen OP et al (1987) Helsinski heart study: primary prevention trial with gemfi-brozil in middle-aged men with dyslipidemia. N Engl J Med 317:1237–1245
Frick MH, Heinonen OP, Huttunen JK et al (1993) Efficacy of gemfibrozil in dyslipidemic subjects with suspected heart disease. An ancillary study in the Helsinki heart study frame population. Ann Med 25:41–45
Gardner MJ, Altman DG (1986) Confidence intervals rather than p values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 292:746–750
Hall JC, Hall JL (2002) Randomisation in surgical trials. Surgery 132:513–518
Harewood GC (2005) Assessment of publication bias in the reporting of EUS performance in staging rectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 100:808–816
Horton R (1996) Surgical research or comic opera: questions, but few answers. Lancet 347:984–985
Jorgensen A, Bach KF, Friis K (2004) Good clinical practice is now obligatory in academic clinical drug research in the European Union. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 94:57–58
Krleza-Jeric K, Chan A, Dickersin K et al (2005) Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1). BMJ 330:956–958
Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF (2003) Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA 290:495–501
Mahoney MJ (1977) Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognit Ther Res 1:161–175
Manninen V (1983) Clinical results with gemfibrozil and background to the Helsinski heart study. Am J Cardiol 5:35–38
Meakins JL (2006) Evidence-based surgery. Surg Clin N Am 86:1–16
Mello MM, Clarridge BR, Studdert DM (2005) Academic medical centers' standards for clinical-trial agreements with industry. N Engl J Med 352:2202–2210
Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D et al (2002) Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 287:2825–2828
Rennie D, Flanagin A (1992) Publication bias. The triumph of hope over experience. JAMA 267:411–412
Sauerland S, Seiler CM (2005) Role of systemic reviews and meta-analysis in evidence-based medicine. World J Surg 29:582–587
Sharp DW (1990) What can and should be done to reduce publication bias? The perspective of an editor. JAMA 263:1390–1391
Simes RJ (1986) The case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 4:1529–1541
Steinbrook R (2004) Public registration of clinical trials. N Engl J Med 22;351:315–317
Stern JM, Simes RJ (1997) Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort of clinical research projects. 315:640–645
Sutton AJ, Duval SJ, Tweedie RL et al (2000) Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses. BMJ 320:1574–1577
Syin D, Woreta T, Chang DC et al (2007). Publication bias in surgery: implications for informed consent. J Surg Res 143:88–93
Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL et al (1998) Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting. Why investigators fail to publish. JAMA 280:257–259
Wells SA Jr (2001) Surgeons and surgical trials — why we must assume a leadership role. Surgery 132:519–520
Wente MN, Shrikhande SV, Müller MW et al (2007) Pancreaticojejunostomy versus pancreaticogastrostomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg 193:171–183
Yoshimoto Y (2003) Publication bias in neurosurgery: lessens from series of unruptured aneurysms. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 145;45–48
Zamakhshary M, Abuznadah W, Zacny J et al (2006) Research publication in pediatric surgery: a cross-sectional study of papers presented at the Canadian Association of Pediatric Surgeons and the American Pediatric Surgery Association. J Pediatr Surg 41:1298–1301
Zarin DA, Tse T, Ide NC (2005) Trial Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. N Engl J Med 353:2779–2787
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Poon, R.TP., Wong, J. (2010). A Framework Is Required to Reduce Publication Bias The Academic Surgeon's View. In: Athanasiou, T., Debas, H., Darzi, A. (eds) Key Topics in Surgical Research and Methodology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71915-1_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71915-1_24
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-71914-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-71915-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)