Literature DB >> 21889307

Retrospective cohort study highlighted outcome reporting bias in UK publicly funded trials.

Geraldine A Matthews1, Jo C Dumville, Catherine E Hewitt, David J Torgerson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess outcome reporting bias and dissemination bias in trials funded by the National Health System (NHS) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: A retrospective cohort study of HTA monographs and corresponding journal publications including all clinical effectiveness randomized controlled trials published as HTA monographs between 1999 and 2005 by the NHS HTA program.
RESULTS: There was a higher median P-value (P=0.33, interquartile range [IQR]: 0.02-0.54) among trials without a journal publication compared with those with a journal publication (P=0.14, IQR: 0.007-0.43), although the difference was not statistically significant (Mann-Whitney U test, z=-0.70; P=0.48). A higher proportion of statistically significant findings were reported in journal articles when compared with the outcomes reported in the HTA monographs. Trials published in general medical journals tended to have smaller P-values (median: 0.05, IQR: 0.001-0.22) than those published in more specialist journals (median: 0.33 IQR: 0.008-0.58), although this result was not significant (Mann-Whitney U test, z=-1.63; P=0.10).
CONCLUSIONS: Among journal-published trials, there were a greater proportion of statistically significant findings included in the journal reports compared with those in the HTA monographs.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21889307     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  5 in total

Review 1.  Publication bias, with a focus on psychiatry: causes and solutions.

Authors:  Erick H Turner
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 5.749

2.  Time to publication for NIHR HTA programme-funded research: a cohort study.

Authors:  Fay Chinnery; Amanda Young; Jennie Goodman; Martin Ashton-Key; Ruairidh Milne
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Bibliometrics of NIHR HTA monographs and their related journal articles.

Authors:  Pamela Royle; Norman Waugh
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 4.  Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review.

Authors:  Kerry Dwan; Carrol Gamble; Paula R Williamson; Jamie J Kirkham
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Outcome Reporting Bias in Government-Sponsored Policy Evaluations: A Qualitative Content Analysis of 13 Studies.

Authors:  Arnaud Vaganay
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-30       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.