David K Vawdrey1, George Hripcsak. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States. david.vawdrey@dbmi.columbia.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the rate of non-publication and assess possible publication bias in clinical trials of electronic health records. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify registered clinical trials of electronic health records and searched the biomedical literature and contacted trial investigators to determine whether the results of the trials were published. Publications were judged as positive, negative, or neutral according to the primary outcome. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent of trials had publications describing trial results; of these, 74% were positive, 21% were neutral, and 4% were negative (harmful). Of unpublished studies for which the investigator responded, 43% were positive, 57% were neutral, and none were negative; the lower rate of positive results was significant (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The rate of non-publication in electronic health record studies is similar to that in other biomedical studies. There appears to be a bias toward publication of positive trials in this domain.
OBJECTIVE: To measure the rate of non-publication and assess possible publication bias in clinical trials of electronic health records. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify registered clinical trials of electronic health records and searched the biomedical literature and contacted trial investigators to determine whether the results of the trials were published. Publications were judged as positive, negative, or neutral according to the primary outcome. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent of trials had publications describing trial results; of these, 74% were positive, 21% were neutral, and 4% were negative (harmful). Of unpublished studies for which the investigator responded, 43% were positive, 57% were neutral, and none were negative; the lower rate of positive results was significant (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The rate of non-publication in electronic health record studies is similar to that in other biomedical studies. There appears to be a bias toward publication of positive trials in this domain.
Authors: Catherine De Angelis; Jeffrey M Drazen; Frank A Frizelle; Charlotte Haug; John Hoey; Richard Horton; Sheldon Kotzin; Christine Laine; Ana Marusic; A John P M Overbeke; Torben V Schroeder; Hal C Sox; Martin B Van Der Weyden Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Sep 11-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Yong Y Han; Joseph A Carcillo; Shekhar T Venkataraman; Robert S B Clark; R Scott Watson; Trung C Nguyen; Hülya Bayir; Richard A Orr Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin; Matthew F Burke; Michael C Hoaglin; David Blumenthal Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Ross Koppel; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Brian Abaluck; A Russell Localio; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mary Regina Boland; Zachary Shahn; David Madigan; George Hripcsak; Nicholas P Tatonetti Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jennifer E Prey; Janet Woollen; Lauren Wilcox; Alexander D Sackeim; George Hripcsak; Suzanne Bakken; Susan Restaino; Steven Feiner; David K Vawdrey Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-11-22 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Benjamin H Slovis; Thomas A Nahass; Hojjat Salmasian; Gilad Kuperman; David K Vawdrey Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Christine Schmucker; Lisa K Schell; Susan Portalupi; Patrick Oeller; Laura Cabrera; Dirk Bassler; Guido Schwarzer; Roberta W Scherer; Gerd Antes; Erik von Elm; Joerg J Meerpohl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 3.240