Literature DB >> 2406473

Minimizing the three stages of publication bias.

T C Chalmers1, C S Frank, D Reitman.   

Abstract

Publication bias can be considered to have three stages: (1) Prepublication bias occurs in the performance of research, caused by ignorance, sloth, greed, or the double standard applied to clinical trials but not to clinical practice. (2) Publication bias refers to basing acceptance or rejection of a manuscript on whether it supports the treatment tested. Potentially biased reviewers are of equal concern. (3) Postpublication bias occurs in publishing interpretations, reviews, and meta-analyses of published clinical trials. Bias can be minimized by (1) insisting on high-quality research and thorough literature reviews, (2) eliminating the double standard concerning peer review and informed consent applied to clinical research and practice, (3) publishing legitimate trials regardless of their results, (4) requiring peer reviewers to acknowledge conflicts of interest, (5) replacing ordinary review articles with meta-analyses, and (6) requiring the authors of reviews to acknowledge possible conflicts of interest.

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2406473

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  22 in total

1.  Consensus conferences must include a systematic search and categorization of the evidence.

Authors:  S Sauerland; E Neugebauer
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 2.  The potential and limitations of meta-analysis.

Authors:  T D Spector; S G Thompson
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal.

Authors:  Elijah Dixon; Morad Hameed; Francis Sutherland; Deborah J Cook; Christopher Doig
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Calcitonin versus etidronate for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: a meta-analysis of published clinical trials.

Authors:  J M Cardona; E Pastor
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 5.  Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: systematic review.

Authors:  Chaim M Bell; David R Urbach; Joel G Ray; Ahmed Bayoumi; Allison B Rosen; Dan Greenberg; Peter J Neumann
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-02-22

6.  The DEC-net European register of paediatric drug therapy trials: contents and context.

Authors:  Chiara Pandolfini; Maurizio Bonati; Valentina Rossi; Eugenio Santoro; Imti Choonara; Coral Naylor; Helen Sammons; Evelyne Jacqz-Aigrain; Setareh Zarrabian; Josep Maria Arnau; Josep Maria Castel; Imma Danés; Inma Fuentes
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 2.953

7.  The emergence of clinical practice parameter guidelines in neuro-oncology: promise of utility tempered with caution.

Authors:  Mark E Linskey
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 8.  Evidence on peer review-scientific quality control or smokescreen?

Authors:  S Goldbeck-Wood
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-01-02

9.  Meta-analysis of linkage data under worst-case conditions: a demonstration using the human OB region.

Authors:  D B Allison; M Heo
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Dealing with publication bias in translational stroke research.

Authors:  Shimin Liu
Journal:  J Exp Stroke Transl Med       Date:  2009
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.